OverUnity Research

@ Coilers.

Came across this.  http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/resonant.html#resonant
Explanation ?

E??

Any more of these kinds of cop>1 posts and folks might start taking
Don Smith seriously.

We can't have that..

stop it. ;D ;D ;D

And DON'T look at VAR whatever you do.  Nothing to see there - move on.

The waveform of increasing amplitude looks more like the
"flywheel effect" which is characteristic of parallel resonant
circuits.  The circulating energy within the resonance can
be several multiples of the energy applied as input in
accordance with its "Q" or magnification factor.

a.king21

Can't have what ? This picture from Don's presentation is the real picture from the real book.

Quote from: forest on 2015.05.05, 19:39:40
a.king21

Can't have what ? This picture from Don's presentation is the real picture from the real book.

I'm being sarcastic.
It's an English thing. 

Quote from: muDped on 2015.05.05, 19:33:28
The waveform of increasing amplitude looks more like the
"flywheel effect" which is characteristic of parallel resonant
circuits.  The circulating energy within the resonance can
be several multiples of the energy applied as input in
accordance with its "Q" or magnification factor.

Good day muDped

Yes, quite right...........{{ in reference to;  parallel resonant circuits.}}
and I will add, in spite of the High 'Q' factor as the amplitude of the resonant wave increases on each successive cycle, so does the input power (primary side) necessary to sustain that progressively expanding waveform.  This is precisely why 'Coilers' make use of an 'interrupt circuit' on a DRSSTC ---to limit resonant rise voltage of the bridge to some predetermined value (ie; counting the # of cycles) thereby keeping the magic smoke *inside* of the FETs or IGBTs.
Played with that for many hours...........

take care, peace
lost_bro


EDIT.....{{}}

No it isn't. Evidence of C.O.P. >1 = more energy output compared to energy input by the operator, no more no less.

Those of us that have experimented with resonant circuits know quite well there is no O.U. in resonance itself. On this forum C.O.P. > 1 = O.U.

If it was C.O.P. > 1 then the system would need to be incorporating energy from outside the system to within it before outputting it.

A wave form is not output. What you see there is a increasing amplitude due to resonant rise. Very common effect.

POWER & CREED

Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.05.05, 23:31:06
On this forum C.O.P. > 1 = O.U.

This statement is correct for closed thermodynamic systems, incorrect for open thermodynamic systems.

Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.05.05, 23:31:06
No it isn't. Evidence of C.O.P. >1 = more energy output compared to energy input by the operator, no more no less.

Those of us that have experimented with resonant circuits know quite well there is no O.U. in resonance itself. On this forum C.O.P. > 1 = O.U.

If it was C.O.P. > 1 then the system would need to be incorporating energy from outside the system to within it before outputting it.

A wave form is not output. What you see there is a increasing amplitude due to resonant rise. Very common effect.

Yes, this is correct. In every COP>1 siituation there is external energy source - ambient force-field. Resonant rise is possible in unloaded resonant systems when there is certain correlation between resistance inductance and capacitance of the system, shortly - when there is so called high Q-factor.

Energy is always in pair like man and woman  :D

Quote from: Aking.21
Here is an example of a micro chip developer who found anomalies in the laws of physics.
He found that a capacitor was not a static device at all.  Through experiment.

Did he find "anomalies" or did he offer proof that our so-called
"Laws of Physics" are in fact incomplete and still being developed?

In order for "overunity" to be exploited and made manifest without
fail there must be some sort of energy available for "tapping into"
which can be collected or harvested by technology.  Once we are
aware of what that energy is we can proceed to harness it.

There are some very spectacular "equipments" which have been
"perfected" in the world of Black Projects with "outside help" which
to casual observers would be classified as massive overunity devices.
What they are capable of is near miraculous from the perspective of
the technology we know.  We have no explanation for how they are
able to operate.  But then, their source of "energy" is only available to
those who are willing to "make the deal."  To "sell their Soul" so to speak...

Quote from: Aking.21
I can quote text books too.

Text Books can be a valuable resource even in the world of Experimentation.
What is presented in Text Books is subject to verification by any who are
curious and are, themselves, the product of experimentation.  Most Text
Books are able to serve as "foundations" which stimulate thought to carry
one's experiments into areas not yet explored.  You know, the classic
"what ifs."

With the caveat that if one's expectations are not well grounded in reality
then the outcome of those experiments into the shady area of "What If" may
be very, very disappointing.  But, edifying none the less...

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.04.27, 22:10:04
"I" is current, not inductance. I don't know why we use "I" for current in Ohm's Law but there it is. V=IR, etc.

But yes, the current and voltage in the loop are much higher than the input DC current and voltage. But this is reactive power stored in a tank circuit. Some people have tried to call this "overunity in VARS", most notably the QEG promoters of "Fix The World" who somehow believe that this can be put to use. It can, but it is not "overunity" since you cannot extract power from the circuit faster than it is being replaced by the power supply, or the tank power will collapse. Just the same as pushing a child on a swing. Small pushes can build up quite high swing amplitudes and sustain those high amplitudes, but if you put a drag on the swing or try to take power out faster than you are supplying it, the amplitude will decrease or even stop swinging.

This is not "apparent" voltage and current, either, it is very real, since it has electromagnetic effects and even ohmic effects, heating the caps (sometimes) significantly and the loop itself slightly.

Perhaps you will be interested in this video playlist, where I illustrate this "overunity in VARs" for the benefit of the believers in the QEG. These are the videos and measurements that the PESN people accused me of faking, but there is no fakery here at all, and the circuit is known and published and anyone can build it and test it for themselves for less than 20 dollars in parts.

The first video, that caused all the fuss and accusations of fakery at PESN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xuXBHJcNsk
Nothing is faked, everything is just as you see it in the video. I'm making the output power measurement just as the FTW people did in their "Morocco has overunity" video, except that they used a storebought current transformer for current sensing and I used an improvised one, and neither of us made correction for any possible phase shift introduced by the current sense method itself.
The rest of the playlist where power extraction, both LV and HV, is shown, and also the whole thing is explained:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa-k7J7vO_I22fVc-h8wcdLf

This is an example of probably one of the best posts I have encountered.

It is almost a perfect analogy to Tesla's earthquake weapon machine which caused the builders on a skyscraper to run for their lives convinced there was an earthquake.
So Tesla's machine: Less than 1 watt input - millions of watts output.  
Back to TK's post:
Now surely we can "steal a couple of watts" to make a self runner.......

A.King who is quoting Text books ?

Regardless, you say Tesla's Earthquake machine was 1 watt input and millions of watts output. And that is all well and good except power is not energy, we can all use a small input power to facilitate a large output power for a short time.
But there is no valid demonstration of 1 watt continuous input with millions of watts continuous output, that's just fantasy.

If you watch a pile driver at work you can see how useful storing up potential energy slowly then releasing it suddenly at much higher power actually is, it is the basis of many very useful devices but it is not OU and never was and never will be. It is a magnification of power by storing it up and releasing it at a faster rate or a higher power, same thing. Tesla even mentions a Pile driver as an analogy for the magnifying effect of his Magnifying Transmitter, if I remember correctly which he clearly stated was under unity in court. ( this can be read in the book Tesla and his work on alternating currents ).

And there are no closed systems in reality, all systems dissipate energy to the environment in some way, so are not closed, some even take more energy from the environment than they dissipate, all open systems, the only real closed system is the entire Universe (all that exists).  We can model systems as closed but they are not really closed unless no energy can escape or enter the system.

Just plain logic tells us that energy cannot be created. It would make no sense in reality if we could create energy then that would mean we could add something to the Universe that we created from nothing, which is of course absolutely impossible and always will be.

people who claim to be able to create energy are completely mad in my opinion. Plain Logic tells me no one can create something from nothing.....period.

Tesla :  I made a mistake: it as not a skyscraper but a ten storey building.

The effect is not cumulative. It is energy amplification.
Here's the quote:

He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one ;ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it.

Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour.

The device consumes probably one watt. That is one watt in one hour. The 10 storey steel building did not have: energy in = energy out.
It had watt amplification.
I stand by my calculations.
As for Farmhand  - you don't even believe that time can be slowed down, so you have a way to go in your understanding of the universe.
Yes I'm quoting from a book - a book which describes an experiment.

Now what is the electrical analogy of THAT building?

Tesla's own words:-

It is clear that Tesla remembered the energy amplification in his earthquake experiments.
He also had to  be clever not to upset the religion of physics and it's fanatical worshippers.

Mechanical Resonance can be very destructive when it
absorbs sufficient energy.  Modern structures are built
with efficient dampening systems to prevent such
destructive resonance.

The Tacoma Narrows bridge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw) was destroyed by resonance.

Tacoma Narrows bridge destruction with sound. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XE5qU0c5qU)

Mechanical Resonance article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance) with links to
other examples of destructive resonance.

Resonance vibration (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/499401/resonance#ref188053)

Quote from: Aking.21
It is clear that Tesla remembered the energy amplification in his earthquake experiments.

As FarmHand explained earlier, the energy stored within a
resonant vibration will have many times the energy contained
within each individual pulse of excitation or stimulation.  The
resonance accumulates energy and increases its peak to a
very high value of stored energy.  That is called the Magnification
Factor.

Whereas in resonant systems the high energy reached is the accumulated effect of all the small input pulses (no OU!) we should also take note that a resonant circuit has the unusual ability to make an otherwise weak coupling from a distant source become a strong coupling.  Anyone who has used a grid dip oscillator will know of this effect, the resonant circuit seems to suck power from the poorly coupled oscillator.  Tesla used this feature in his proposed wireless power distribution. Thus if there happens to be some distant source of RF energy that you don't know about, you can be fooled into thinking you have a COP>1 system when all you are doing is suck energy from that unknown source.  If that unknown source is something in nature that is there all the time, driven by the quantum background, perhaps electron precession or nuclear precession, then perhaps you could claim COP>1.

Smudge   

@ Smudge.

Smacks of TH Moray.   ;)  Have you any thoughts?

Aking.  A mechanical approach? Could some energy be syphoned?

E??

Smudge
Quote

If that unknown source is something in nature that is there all the time.
------------------------------------------

I have often felt that the proper antennae array with the proper circuit could harvest lightning
with out ever actually causing a Strike .

Could a ground array attach or poorly Couple to the ionosphere ??

respectfully

Chet K

OU is simple and you Smudge should know it perfectly.  O0 It's all about charge.
Charge is ether.

OK so if the increasing amplitude wave form is OU then what does this video of an increasing waveform that I witnessed in a setup I played with say then is it OU as well ?

Increasing Amplitude wave form. Video from 2012.  O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjuE91-qXu0

I call this the Swordfish wave form, others call it the wine glass wave form. One thing is for sure is that it is nothing special, I know this because I can do it and I can recognize why it happens.

Of course it is not. It's just resonance. But if it was OU then I can repeat it any time some one shows the claimed relationship between that kind of wave form and anomalous energy.

And I think I know why it happens. It has to do with loose coupling and tuned coils for both primary and secondary.

The primary takes time to transfer it's energy to the secondary and as it does that the wave form amplitude rises to the point where it fires the secondary spark gap (voltage limiter).

Anyone agree ? Don't agree say why, but don't use others words use your own.

In fact I'll go so far as to say that once one understands how the wave form comes to be, then it is quite simple to produce, and the reasons for it being how it is are clear.

..

A,King, I'm Afraid you are confused. Time is a mental construct of humans to represent the orderly motions of the Cosmos ect. Our perception of time can be altered and the recording of passing time can be altered maybe but the motions of the universe continues without any change regardless of what we do.

1 day is one revolution of the Earth. How do you claim the revolution of the Earth can be slowed down ?

Any timepiece will have it's nuances, but the passing of the orderly events in the Cosmos continues.

Maybe an atomic clock will run slower in orbit than on Earth. Do we know that time is passing slower or just the atomic clock ?

Possibly even atomic clocks are slowing down, but nothing that we do will alter that aspect any more than we can alter the expansion of the Universe.

Example 1. A man on Earth invents a time machine that can slow time down for him, only problem is the Earth does not slow and it leaves him behind in space, does he just float up in the sky and go into space falling further and further behind the Earth.

Example 2, A satellite in Earths orbit is experiencing a slowing of time, and if so the Earth must leave it behind because as time passes slower for the satellite it travels less distance in the same time.

I think it's relative and a problem of the timepieces and human understanding of it.

See the cartoon slowing time would have much the same effect as going back in time, except slowing time would cause a gradual falling behind whereas transporting would be instantaneous.

It is simply a relativity issue in my opinion.

Time is not a true dimension we cannot travel in time like we can in space, like forward and back we can't even travel in time time just passes as we exist, there is a continuous passing of events and we created Time so it can be recorded and understood better what others are referring to as to when something happened. We can get along without using the word time, but it's much easier to use it.

The passing of events can not be slowed but timepieces may make it appear that it does.

If a satellite is put in orbit with no one on it and no timepiece on it then we could send it up and then bring it down and the time it was up there is very clear, we can record it on Earth, I would not trust a timepiece to read the same in space as it does on earth. Regardless of what the timepiece on the satellite says the satellite was in space for the time we record on Earth. Simple. Any alterations is for something other than time itself slowing down.

..

Here's another though exercise,

1. The Earth is rotating on it's axis = the days.
2. The Earth is also orbiting the Sun = years
3. Now if we imagine a spacecraft that can reach 99.9% of the speed of light and is orbiting the Earth at that speed.
4. And of course as believed (but not by me) Approaching the speed of light slows time.

Questions ?

How can time slow down for the spacecraft while it remains in orbit together with the Earth around the Sun, and at the same rate when the Earth and the spacecraft are supposedly experiencing different "rates" of "time" ?

After 1 year both the spacecraft and the earth will have completed one orbit of the Sun, so would they both not have experienced one year of Time regardless of what any timepiece says ?

..

If you could get on a spacecraft and do the thought experiment for real then after 1 orbit of the Sun still 1 year will have past, regardless of how many seconds were counted wherever and with what.

@Farmhand

QuoteHow can time slow down for the spacecraft while it remains in orbit together with the Earth around the Sun, and at the same rate when the Earth and the spacecraft are supposedly experiencing different "rates" of "time" ?

After 1 year both the spacecraft and the earth will have completed one orbit of the Sun, so would they both not have experienced one year of Time regardless of what any timepiece says ?

The problem I see is that the scientists have relied on faith in their instruments more so their personal interpretation of what they think their instruments are showing. There are actually two options, 1) time has changed or 2) the clocks have changed. It seems no one thought to think that the rate at which matter oscillates (the clock) may be effected as velocity increases due to interaction with the external field. It is strange that they believe space is empty but they also know it is full of radiation, plasma and high energy particles.

I find the fact so many credible people have come to believe time is variable very strange and see them as no different than the OU crowd. They look at their instruments then see what they want to see despite the fact they do not understand what they are actually seeing. In my opinion we have a lot to learn and we need to start discarding unworkable theories such as variable space/time.

AC

I was waiting for that one Farmhand.

The sat nav in your car would be way out if special relativity was not taken into account.
And guess what? Einstein's maths stack up perfectly.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

So a device most of us use every time we are in a new-to-us location needs to take into account the
time field.

Every time you fly G P S (SAT NAV)  ensures you get to your destination.

http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

I stand by my previous posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The fundamental flaw in physics understanding and why Tesla's earthquake machine is overunity.

Smudge is of the opinion that in Tesla's earthquake machine is:   energy in = energy out.
Not so:  it's impossible.
Tesla's machine  is an overunity device.

His tapper consumes no more than a couple of watts.
If it is active for 15 minutes = 2/4 = 1/2 watt total  power.
There is NO WAY that that amount of power can cause an earthquake effect.

So where is the flaw in our understanding??

Put simply:  at the end of each stroke the pendulum becomes weightless.

If you push at that point, then the effect is the same as if you were in outer space and pushed against  the walls of your space ship. So a little force creates a HUGE effect.

You can think of the ten storey building as an upside down pendulum.
By tapping the building at the precise moment when the building becomes -  weightless
you get maximum "bang for your buck".

So the fundamental flaw in physics is that they fail to take into account
the changing G forces on a swinging pendulum.

AREN'T YOU GLAD YOU THOUGHT OF THAT. :D
(To quote Don Smith).

@Aking.21

QuoteThe sat nav in your car would be way out if special relativity was not taken into account.
And guess what? Einstein's maths stack up perfectly.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

So a device most of us use every time we are in a new-to-us location needs to take into account the
time field.

Every time you fly G P S (SAT NAV)  ensures you get to your destination.

Actually no it is not special relativity nor it is a time field... I mean really a time field?. Does it seem wise to give a measure of something it's own properties because then we are speaking of the measure of a measure which is absurd in my opinion. Why we may as well give every measure it's own properties... can inches bend?, can weight compress? or velocity curve?. Well no that is quite ridiculous and yet that is exactly what we have done isn't it?. We have inferred properties to a measure of something because we do not believe that something might change in a way we never considered.

Let me ask you a question, which seems more likely...
1) when something moves the rate at which time changes varies within the whole of the universe or...
2) when something moves the fundamental rate of oscillation of the particles which constitutes the mass changes in some way giving the appearance that time has changed when it is a property of matter which has changed.

I mean what exactly do you think OU is my friend?, do you believe it is something from nothing or maybe just maybe we might be able to change the properties of matter in some way which most all have believed cannot change and must be constant?. It is like you are standing on the sand on the beach and you believe it is firm and then I walk up with a simple machine which vibrates the sand and it becomes fluid. At which point you sink like a rock up to your neck and you are left wondering what has happened here?, how can this be?... it is simple physics and I have changed the properties of something you have taken for granted.

Time variance is sheer delusion and I have seen no real proof which makes any sense in my opinion. They forgot to apply Occam's razor to themselves and the simplest solution is that matter has changed in some way not the passage of time in the whole universe.... that is quite insane. However if we could change the properties of matter then what do you think we might be capable of in the future?...why almost anything in my opinion. Wine into water, lead into gold... but nobody wants to go there do they?.

AC

I must say that I agree with AC, it is rods and clocks and even human bodies that change to give the appearance of altered time.  Warped space-time is just a math means of accounting for those physical changes.  I have studied Einstein's SR and GR and understand the math, but I don't really believe that time itself actually changes in any way.  I do accept that we have to take account of those changes to make things like GPS work, so the math is important.

Smudge

@Aking.21

QuoteIf gravity did not compress space (we'll leave the time bit out for now) then gravitational lensing would be impossible.
The fact is that gravitational lensing is a major facet of current astronomical research,
because it enables us to see light years beyond normal Hubble space telescope resolution.

So, like it or not, objects such as feet and inches and centimeters are different in different
areas of space.

Once again we may apply Occam's razor, now which seems more likely...
1) Gravity which nobody really understands because they don't know what it is changes space (a measure) and time (another measure) creating an effect which bends light called gravitational lensing or...
2)Light is bent near a massive object with a strong gravitational field for reasons we do not fully understand because we do not know what Gravity is.

I think it is a case of wishful thinking to support their own theories which they have a vested interest in because if they were wrong after all this time and effort then that wouldn't look very good. I think we all understand that many people will go to any length not to be proven wrong... that human nature thing. Myself I have no vested interest in any theory and I just want to understand how the universe works. In any case Einstein himself said in his later years that it was an unworkable theory and I agree. It is simply too far fetched and unbelievable even by OU standards, lol.

AC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

@Evolvingape
The mistake Einstein made and many continue to make can be corrected by simply looking at your picture as if it were one of the three primary fields--- Electric, Magnetic and Gravic. The field is not something in itself but a condition of something already present which is EM energy from every star in the universe because as you know energy is conserved thus this energy must be present everywhere.

Time is simply a measure and it is constant however the Primary Fields which dictate the action of all matter are variable. If you read Einsteins original lectures you will find he was a very logical yet abstract thinker. In one lecture he said something to the effect that if reality does not fit the equation then change the reality and that is what he did. He changed time to gain a better understanding however again we need to think in an abstract sense. If all particle-fields must interact within a given time frame to hold any given properties then changing the interaction time is equivalent to changing the interaction in itself ie. they have the same effect. Thus Einstein's thought experiment concerning time is in a sense true but not in a literal sense. The particle-field interaction changes as a function of time, time is the measure of the interaction not something in itself.


AC

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.05.12, 18:49:45
The fundamental flaw in physics understanding and why Tesla's earthquake machine is overunity.

Smudge is of the opinion that in Tesla's earthquake machine is:   energy in = energy out.
Not so:  it's impossible.
Tesla's machine  is an overunity device.

His tapper consumes no more than a couple of watts.
If it is active for 15 minutes = 2/4 = 1/2 watt total  power.
There is NO WAY that that amount of power can cause an earthquake effect.

So where is the flaw in our understanding??

This is a must read for Free Energy researchers, particularly for newer members to OUR.



The Free Energy Researcher's:
POWER & CREED
- A must read for those on the quest for Free Energy at OUR.
Prepared by: Darren Kozey (poynt99)
Document Date: 2009/12/13
Revision: V2.0
The Free Energy Researcher's: POWER & CREED

Preface
The world needs an alternative to conventional energy sources; dare we call this
alternative source "free energy"?

Free Energy research is alive and well on a number of public and private forums.
There are many people actively researching in this area; the vast majority of
which are younger and less experienced folks. This is fantastic and will hopefully
secure a better future for all. However, with youth and/or inexperience, often
comes over-enthusiasm and haste. Many times indeed, it is the experienced and
technically-trained researchers that fall into the all-too-familiar trap of letting
their excitement, hope, enthusiasm, or lack of know-how, get in the way of
better judgment.

To declare something extraordinary and make claims of "overunity" without solid
substantiating evidence or proof to back it up, does a great disservice to all on
the FE quest, especially when the claim turns out to be a false alarm or a
deception.

The aim of this document is to serve as a guide to help all FE researchers avoid
the pitfalls of making an unsubstantiated claim.
To follow is a creed by which I strongly encourage all to study it, understand it,
and above all...apply it!

Dedication
This document is dedicated to all the brilliant and determined minds working in
Free Energy research...all those in the present, the past, and the future.
Thank you for your tenacity and your commitment to the FE quest.

INTRODUCTION
Most claims of overunity turn out to be the result of erroneous assumptions,
measurement errors, nonexistent measurements, suspicious measurements, or
equipment limitations. As such, a short guide is needed that all FE researchers
can refer to and apply while conducting their research and publishing their
results. The following CREED, MAKING CLAIMS AND DISCLOSING RESPONSIBLY,
and MAKING PROPER POWER MEASUREMENTS (for electronics devices) sections
make up this guide.

It is by no means perfect or complete, but a starting point at least, and one that
would surely go a long way in avoiding much frenzy, anxiety, wasted time, effort
and money, embarrassment, flaming, loss of respect and integrity, and arguing
etc., for all interested parties involved. If only it can be followed.

THE FE RESEARCHER'S CREED
"As a Free Energy Researcher, I dedicate my knowledge and skill to the advancement
and betterment of human welfare. I strive for integrity, accuracy, and completeness in
my work and my releases to the public.
I pledge in conducting my FE research:
- To give the utmost of performance;
- To make no assumptions, no matter how "obvious" things may appear to me;
- To never jump to conclusions when apparent anomalies are observed;
- To investigate and strive to eliminate ALL possible sources of error BEFORE
making conclusions about any observed anomalies;
- To exercise due diligence in regards to fully understanding what I am doing,
and how I am doing it;
- To conduct my experiments, tests, and measurements in a scientific manner
and with the correct and most appropriate equipment;
- To strive for and take steps towards making COP measurements that are
flawless and accurate, while understanding and accounting for the
limitations and idiosyncrasies of my test equipment;
- To place integrity before ego;
- To post claims of overunity only when backed up with solid proof and
evidence in the form of fully documented, and accurate measurements and
test setup diagrams;
- To do my best in explaining and illustrating my disclosures, and be well-prepared
to answer any questions on things I may have overlooked;
- To seek advice, guidance, and review from my un-biased peers and those
with more technical know-how BEFORE I post any extraordinary claims of
overunity;
- To do my homework (all of the above).
In humility and with need for Collective/Higher Guidance, I make this pledge."

MAKING CLAIMS AND DISCLOSING RESPONSIBLY
For anyone planning on disclosing something or making a claim, please use the
following as a guide to do so:
1) Decide and state what exactly you are about to claim:
Options here include:
a) 100% certainty you have achieved overunity.
b) You are not 100% sure and asking for help to determine if it is so.
c) You are only observing strange effects and you would like other users to
provide helpful feedback.
2) Regardless of which option fits your case, please provide in your post the
following minimum parts:
a) A complete drawing or schematic of your prototype or test setup.
b) A clear description of what the device or circuit is, what you think the
circuit is doing, or what you wanted it to do.
c) A list of references to any other devices or documentation you based your
device on.
d) A list of proper power measurements (see Power Measurements at OUR).
e) A photo of your setup is optional, but may be helpful.
3) For those with limited Free Energy Research experience, and/or electronics
experience, please post a request for someone to review your steps 1) and 2)
above BEFORE making your post and claim.
4) Refine all the above listed elements with the feedback received from the
more technically-experienced forum users.
5) Make your claims / disclosure post.

MAKING PROPER POWER MEASUREMENTS
Accurate power measurements are probably the most difficult and least
understood, yet the most meaningful measurements to perform, especially in the
Free Energy circles. If one makes a claim of overunity and their measurement of
input power vs. output power is either not supplied, or is questionable in its
accuracy, no one will be interested in delving further into or inquiring about their
work...and rightly so.

Far too often researchers are fooled by assuming that their test equipment or
method is yielding true and accurate measurements, when more often than not,
this is probably not the case. In fact, most researchers probably don't
understand the basics of how meters work and what separates a truly TRUE RMS
measurement from an "average" one. The following is a quote from Bob
Paddock's "POWER MEASUREMENT" article linked at the end of this document:

"I had a need to make a power measurement of an unusual high-frequency wave form for an
application I was working on. Because of the esoteric nature the application had, I wanted to be
sure I would not be hearing the words "Measurement Errors".

Far too often I've seen others try to do high-frequency power measurements by looking at the
signal on their oscilloscope, or by using their bench multimeter without understanding its
specifications. Looking at a complex high-frequency wave form with a multimeter designed for
60-Hz sine waves simply does not give meaningful results."
[pony99: unless one is looking for the average value of a signal, then DC meters perform well in this task]

A great deal of FE research involves the use of non-sinusoidal, spikey, and noisy
inputs and outputs. As such there are some "precautions" one must take to
ensure that any measurements performed on such devices under test (DUT's)
will yield true and meaningful results. Devices utilizing or creating high frequency
components are especially susceptible to measurement errors and it is imperative
that this is understood. Special care and considerations are required in these
cases in order that good measurements can be obtained.
Please refer to the Power Measurements and High Frequency Measurements
threads for detailed information on performing accurate and obtaining
meaningful power measurements.

Following are some relevant terms that require definition and clarification:

OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS
An Open System is one in which power or energy from outside the device's
immediate domain, may be added to the system for free. This outside energy or
power is not the energy or power supplied by you the user to make the system
operate, but is energy or power supplied by the environment, universe, aether or
ZPF etc. This "outside" energy supplement is what makes "overunity" possible.
A Closed System is one in which no energy from outside the immediate domain
of the device can or will enter the system. The device sees only the energy or
power that you the user supply to it. Closed systems are therefore inherently
under, or at unity, but never overunity.

EFFICIENCY (η)
The efficiency of a DUT in a closed system, is simply the ratio between the
power converted by the device, namely "the output power", to the power
supplied to the device by the user, namely "the input power". Devices that
operate strictly in a closed system will always have an efficiency of 100% or less.
The efficiency of a DUT in an open system, is a little more complicated, but as I'll
explain, not necessarily relevant to FE research.

Strictly speaking, the efficiency of a DUT in an open system is computed the
same way as that for a closed system. However, it may be difficult if not
impossible to calculate, depending on the device and its overunity mechanism.
If for example your DUT requires 10 Watts of input power to operate, wastes 9
Watts of power in heat (as measured with a calorimeter with no load), but puts
out 100 Watts, the efficiency of the device is only a meager 10% ! In this case,
at least 99 Watts of power is freely entering the system from the "outside" and
being converted and output by the device, but the efficiency is still only 10%.
To say that this device has an efficiency of 1000% is simply not correct ! Even in
open systems, the efficiency can not and must not be higher than 100%.
So by all means, strive to make your energy device as efficient as possible, but
the real and meaningful FE quest is to obtain more output power than is required
as input power for the device to operate.

COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE (COP)
Again we must examine this parameter in the context of open and closed
systems.

In a closed system, the COP will be equal to the efficiency in a sense, but is
expressed as a ratio as follows: 1:1 (η=100%), 0.8:1 (η=80%), etc. So one
should conclude from the discussion so far, that the COP in a closed system will
never be higher than 1:1.

In an open system, the COP could be anywhere from 0.1:1 to 106:1. It all
depends on the efficiency of the device (with low COP's), and how much energy
or power is freely added to the system from the "outside" with a given input
power.

COP in open systems is computed by taking the ratio between the freely added
"outside" power (POopen), PLUS the output power (if any) supplied by the closed
system (POclosed), to the user-supplied input power (PI).
In equation form:

COP = (POopen + POclosed)/PI   OR  = POtotal/PI

Do we care if we are measuring collected open-system power PLUS closed system
power on the output? No. What we care about is obtaining more total
power on the output of the DUT, than we are supplying for device operation.

OVERUNITY
As already discussed, overunity is not possible in closed systems, and therefore
can only exist in open systems. Overunity then is achieved any time a device or
system exhibits a COP>1.

QuoteAs already discussed, overunity is not possible in closed systems, and therefore
can only exist in open systems. Overunity then is achieved any time a device or
system exhibits a COP>1.

Uhm... an EM propulsion system based on a closed system was thought to be impossible and yet in the EMDrive thread we find most all the resident experts here dictating terms really don't have a clue what their talking about. Now if an Em drive and an overunity device based on a closed system are equally impossible then why has one been proven to be true by NASA and many other independent research groups?.

Let's be honest here, the statement "overunity is not possible in closed systems" is a misleading statement based on sheer speculation because not one single person knows with absolute certainty it is true. The fact is the unknows are infinite relative to what we know at this point and it makes the false presumption that nothing can ever change when history has proven otherwise.

No offense but a bunch of old farts sitting around making up excuses why nothing can ever change is no way to spend your remaining years on this planet because resistance is futile. Everything will change with or without your consent, despite what you believe because it always does whether we choose to believe it or not. Our believing something does not change the reality of things we cannot know and if you want to apply fanatical religious type doctrines to science and technology then your going to lose. The fact of the matter is that your personal flavor of personal beliefs does not dictate our future...period.

The fact of the matter is that nobody here knows what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic) and Inertia are on the most fundamental level thus we can never know the infinite number of ways in which they might interact. We cannot base our beliefs and understanding on a complete lack of understanding...that is absurd.

AC

Allcanadian


You hint at that you have your own theory about  Primary Fields ,please explain your theory.
I totaly agree with you about Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, gravity), and inertia there exact nature is unknown.

@cheappower2012

QuoteYou hint at that you have your own theory about  Primary Fields ,please explain your theory.
I totaly agree with you about Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, gravity), and inertia there exact nature is unknown.

My theories came about through a thought experiment relating to psychology I called -- "what's your normal". To me normal is a 6 acre yard and I don't push a mower I ride one. To another person a 600 sq/ft apartment about as big as my bathroom with no yard is normal. A crack addict in the city might think his life is normal while a cold beer after work is about as far as I am generally willing to go. The thing to understand here is that most people think their personal flavor of normal is the right one however it is seldom if ever considered from a universal perspective only as it relates to other peoples perspective.

That is we always tend to see things around us as they appear however we have no comprehension of the infinitely small or infinitely large which could be said to be the environment we are immersed in. We are on a large planet made of extremely small particles which never actually touch because there separated by fields and this aggregate we call a planet is speeding through this galaxy at 140 miles/sec towards the star Vega. This could be said to be the true reality of our existence which most everyone has completely ignored because they live in an imaginary world which they have created for themselves.

This is why the true nature of the Primary Fields is completely unknown to them because they are trapped in the same narrow minded perspective as everyone else which revolves around work, family and friends, money, their house and a new car...objects. Few if any of these things actually exist outside the context of this planet and yet this is their life, this is their normal. In any case the first thing I did was discard all the make believe human contrivance and started looking at things for what they really are, what we know they are and the rest was relatively easy.

I mean does anyone actually believe the field around an electron just is?... it just comes from nowhere and never changes or dissipates for no apparent reason?... because that is absurd.

AC

Allcanadian
So you are basing your belief on a thought experiment and obviously on your ufo encounter.
The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step,having seen a ufo myself a very
long time ago along with hundreds of other people,I'm not skeptical about ufo's.Certain
theories in physics are totally correct,some are correct in the sense you can use them,
but conceptually there not correct this creates a limitation.A ufo going from a slow speed
to thousands of miles per hour in seconds or doing sharp right angle turns indicates our
conception of gravity and inertia may need correction.example lets say the ufo weighs 10 tons,
lets say they can reduce the weight to 100 pounds at will,the ufo's inertia now is equal to
a hundred pound object ,F/m =a ,as the mass m approaches 0,the acceleration vastly increases
assuming the ufo had a constant forward force applied to it. The occupants inside  would under
go a change in there effective mass,they would weigh less than an once,so would not feel any
acceleration,if the ufo did a sharp right angle turn,the inter molecular bonding of the ufo
is vastly stronger than the inertia generated trying to tear it apart,so the ufo would not
tear itself apart.In the early days of ufo sightings there were electromagnetic effects
reported,cars stopped,power outages,a stop sign vibrated and others.A long time ago a book
came out that was  about an encounter that a guy hunting in the woods had,he spotted a ufo,
a 20 foot disk over head,he looked at the disk with polarized binoculars,light in the sky
is partially polarized(blue sky),a strong enough magnetic field will polarize light,he saw
concentric rings around the underside of the disk that moved slowly.He was able to take
some pictures of this,
very weird pictures,they calculated the strength of the magnetic it was beyond any
earth technology.This book disappeared,it had all kinds of calculations about the strength
of the magnetic field around the ufo,the witness said that as the ufo began to accelerate
the pulsing of the magnetic field increased then the disk took off at a high rate of speed.
I understand that you are hopeful that the physics we know now will be expanded,however
there is such strong resistance its not going to happen.There are reported sightings where a cars
have been picked up,the car occupants experienced a a kind of weightlessness,this would
indicate a field of some sort is present close to the craft.Any object getting close will
experience first a strong magnetic field as it gets closer a reduction in inertia and
weight, air molecules will also experience this inertia reduction,so  even if the ufo travels
at a very high rate of speed there would be no heat on the surface of the ufo.Speculating a
little more,As to how the ufo fits into free energy theres a very close connection between gravity
fields and magnetic fields,the reason the ufo's have a super powerful magnetic field, is gravity
fields and magnetic fields no not interact in an attractive way,however there is a very
close connection,I believe that  gravity and inertia  is reduced by converting some of
the gravity field into a magnetic field,the magnetic field produced is the energy of the
gravity field,it is vast.The inertia of an object is independent to it being in a gravity
field its resistance to change in direction,or acceleration  is due to the gravity field of
the object its self so by reducing its effective gravity field you would reduce its inertia.
There is no explanation of inertia under general relativity,it is possible to account for the
3 proofs of general relativity one of them creates a huge problem in that gravity has to be a
force,so if its not a curvature of space then its not correct in its concept.However you would
get nowhere as nobody would listen to you,remember the discussion you had with MarkE on your
ufo sighting,it would play out exactly like that.Here is a video for anyone interested ,
this illustrates  how the workings of general relativity, gravity, is taught as fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

Its very hard to conceive of gravity as an extremely powerful energy source vs just an
attractive force.What I said is speculation of course,however there are points in physics
where errors have been created,I'm not going to get into where there at, you have to look
very closely.A real world free energy device will use a concept involving the connection
between gravity and magnetic fields to generate electrical energy.

Re UFO tech:
Bob Lazar has explained the tech to my satisfaction.
Everything adds up technologically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFdpBgCbv5E
Is a great starting point on ufo technology.

you have to be careful about Bob Lazar
look at this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym1pVpCLsUI

and this

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/bob_lazar.htm

Like free energy research that has crackpots,energy mythology,out right frauds,mad dog hard line skeptics,and people that have there heart in the
right place but are flat out wrong and  of course a few real devices.
The UFO investigation area also  has its share of frauds,crackpots and real sightings,not many.
Keep in mind, I have seen a ufo,I'm not skeptical about ufo's,I am skeptical about people and what there agendas are.
I don't believe the government has reversed engineered captured UFO's or are working with grey aliens,I do believe they have crashed UFO's,but have no clue how they work or how to reverse engineer them.If UFO's are
real and are machines,machines break or can be damaged and will crash.

THIS IS THE ONE::


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgi7kdBTPFU




ENJOY!

OK A.King., then can you explain logically how exactly the Earth and a satellite orbiting it at close to the speed of light can both orbit the Sun in the same "period" while they are both supposedly experiencing different "rates" of time ?

Then extend that over 100 000 years rather than one year and explain how they stay together in orbit around the Sun.

The fact is that even if a satellite was orbiting the Earth at 2 x light speed, both the satellite and the Earth would orbit the Sun in the same time frame or period. This is an axiom. Any appearance of time rate variation is an illusion and the effect must have another cause or causes.

1 year is one year and if two objects in motion both complete an orbit of the Sun in one year and both remain together while they do it then logic and common sense say they both experience the same rate of time. Both have experienced the previous year as 1 year.

..

Maybe it would be helpful to look at just how an atomic clock works. Cesium fountain atomic clock. Is it really possible for an atomic clock to work the same at any point in the Universe ? I doubt it.

..

Maybe if we envision ourselves as watching the Earth and a light speed satellite orbiting the Earth while they both orbit the Sun from a great distance on another planet in another Galaxy and I think we would see them both take 1 year to orbit the Sun regardless of how fast the Earth's satellite is moving in orbit around the Earth.

..

It is kind of funny when we think about it... imagine we see a clock on a wall and it starts spinning slower then faster, now why would anyone in their right mind think time is changing when in fact it should be obvious the clock is changing. Next we could imagnie a ruler which miraculously shinks then grows longer, should we assume space has changed when it seems obvious it is in fact the ruler which has changed. I simply cannot imagine why anyone who honestly believes in logic and reason would take such a blind leap of faith as to assume the measure has somehow miraculously changed but not the material being measured.

I simply cannot even imagine anything more absurd but then again by the numbers 80% of people who believe in GR may also believe a bearded man in a white dress created the whole universe in about a week. Oh the humanity...

AC

A.King are you religious or scientific ? On this it seems AC and I are in agreement, maybe others can also see the logic.

An electron does not orbit an atom at all. The electron is actually part of the ATOM, the electron orbits the nucleus.

Please educate yourself some more.

And we can stop an electron from orbiting in some atoms by nuclear fission, (splitting the atom) must surely mean that particular atom no longer exists.

The pendulum Clock and the atomic clock both work as resonators. Depending on the environment they could be affected and work differently.

I'm no expert but I would ask if the atomic clock is affected by gravity. And it seems that it is. http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm

QuoteThe big difference between a standard clock in your home and an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.

Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm
..

An atomic clock is just another kind of timepiece. The article says an atomic clock can keep time better than the Earth and Sun but they are wrong because an atomic clock will not continue to operate for as long as the Earth and Sun and it will fail well before the Earth and Sun do. Any single Man made contrivance cannot keep time over many millions of years.

The actual rate of time passing does not and cannot be altered by us in any way. We can only measure it with devices and devices will have nuances.

.

It is true that an atomic clock can keep time in a way that is better for us to utilize than the Earth and Sun and other types of clocks ect. but it fails because it is a man made device and will fail and has nuances.

..

Truth is the Sun and Earth are reliable, even if we loose all electrical power and even all our belongings we can keep track of time by using the Sun and the Earth and record it using a rock and some kind of paint or other marker..

..

@Farmhand
I'm glad you jumped in because I didn't even know where to begin to respond to Aking's post. I mean it was so off the wall and speculative and inaccurate it just blew me away.

Quote

QuoteThe big difference between a standard clock in your home and an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.

I like your quote and I think it justifies the opinion that the properties of matter may be changed in which case it's a whole new ball game.

AC

I forgot to link the source of the quote it's a site called how stuff works hehe http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm link in my previous post now.

I just can't see how it could be possible for the rate of time to change in one place and not everywhere at once. That can't work as I see it.

I can see how a clock would work differently in orbit to how it works on Earth though. And that some formula is needed to correct the clocks for GPS.

The Universe is eternal in some form or other.

Time is a man made concept.

There is no proof of any aliens coming from light years away. Or from another time.

there may be evidence, but......

Evidence is not proof. Just like power is not Energy.

The only thing that traveling at great speed through the Cosmos will ensure you is a collision sooner or later.

Fact is the human mind wants to try to understand that which is incomprehensible to any living thing.

Ask a big bang theorist exactly where the stuff that went bang came from.

1) Nothing cannot go bang.. period.

2) Something cannot be created from nothing.

3) Therefore everything that "is" has always "been" in existence (in some form or other).

4) So there is no beginning and no end to everything that makes up the Universe.

5) And considering that, I say that time is a man made concept and time did not exist as such until man invented it.

6) Because of the orderly movements of the Cosmos we are able to exist as living humans.

7)  If the Universe reverts to Chaos then we become simply matter and time becomes non existent again.  

8) No humans or other highly intelligent beings that keep track of time means no time.

..
Lol Site code changed my 8 and ) into an emoticon, cool.

..

OK AC, I've thought of an analogy that should "show" a paradox in theory, I'll write it out and see how it reads.

Considering no input to make the below Satellite orbit.

If a satellite orbiting the Earth at .99 light speed was transmitting real power (without loss) to the Earth at a rate of 1000 Watts for 1 hour and time was slowing on the satellite then the received energy on Earth should be greater than the energy transmitted from the satellite because the 1000 Watts should be received for longer than 1 hour on Earth even though it was transmitted for only 1 hour from the Satellite.

Sounds like theoretical O.U. or theoretical Energy from nothing.  O0

The same should be true for signal power received from regular satellites but to a much smaller degree, if they really do experience a slowing of "time" as people generally think of "time".

If the clock on the satellite and the clock on Earth are truly synchronous in rate of internal workings but the rate of time slows for the satellite and it's clock then when the signals are sent and received there must be an annihilation of Energy on one end or the creation of Energy at the other.

Paradox ?

A much more realistic view is that the clock on the satellite works differently for some reason, and time remains the same in both places regardless of what the clock reads. And due to the difference (which is fairly constant) corrections need to be made so that the GPS devices will work well enough. Remember GPS is not perfect, perfection is not possible.

..

@Farmhand
Your last two posts were awesome and it is refreshing to read posts with coherence and some kind of justification for one's thoughts. The problem is most people don't want to talk about justification or proof and they tend to make general statements and expect people to just believe what they say. To me faith and belief in no way constitute proof and while I may respect all people I do not feel compelled in any way to respect their beliefs. If a person cannot prove their belief or at the very least offer reasonable justification then it means nothing in my opinion. Otherwise were still in the dark ages and I may as well respect the fact someone may believe a pink flying unicorn named "fuzzy" created the universe in about one week.

QuoteAsk a big bang theorist exactly where the stuff that went bang came from.

1) Nothing cannot go bang.. period.

2) Something cannot be created from nothing.

3) Therefore everything that "is" has always "been" in existence (in some form or other).

4) So there is no beginning and no end to everything that makes up the Universe.

5) And considering that, I say that time is a man made concept and time did not exist as such until man invented it.

6) Because of the orderly movements of the Cosmos we are able to exist as living humans.

7)  If the Universe reverts to Chaos then we become simply matter and time becomes non existent again.  

This is what I'm talking about O0, is it true?...I don't know however you have made a very compelling argument to justify your opinion which seems very reasonable. I just cannot wrap my mind around the fact some people just expect other people to believe what they say for no other reason than they have said it. I also think your points raise many difficult questions, if something cannot be created from nothing then the universe cannot be created from nothing hence the religious argument of creation is false and science cannot co-exist with religion. If the universe has no beginning or end then science is left with a false construct because our whole system of our measurement is based on a starting point and an end point. Thus science cannot co-exist with it's own more reasonable  conception of the universe either. Were stuck between a rock and a hard place and simply believing some imaginary being created everything may actually be the easier option as delusional as it is. It simply makes no sense from either perspective, we either believe everything is and always was with no beginning or end or a pink flying unicorn named "fuzzy" created all this...I need a beer.

AC

Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.05.24, 02:02:40
8) No humans or other highly intelligent beings that keep track of time means no time.

In it's most basic form the Distance Speed Time triangle shows the relationship of a mass moving through a space with time.

If a mass is moving through a space then it takes time to do it irrespective of whether an observer is present to measure that time passing.

A quick search for opposing views on Bob Lazar and this page is top pick:

http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2011.01.07

This page contains a link to Lazar Critique by Dr. David L. Morgan:

In 1996, I was asked to review the content of  a Bob Lazar website by an online acquaintance. Since then, my critique has been posted to Usenet discussion boards, featured on web pages, and taken on something of a life of its own. I still get email about it monthly, which is quite amusing, considering it's been almost 5 years since I wrote it. Since the original posting was intended to be an informal email, the tone was somewhat harsh and flippant, and some sections were a bit too dismissive. I decided recently that I would try to put together a  revision of the now-infamous paper. That revision is presented below.

After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the "physics" of his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint.  Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don't feel that Lazar's pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

I will focus on the parts of Lazar's text which I took the most exception with- most of these excerpts relate to particle physics, which is my field. Lazar's text is in boldface. He begins by describing the principle behind interstellar travel...

This is accomplished by generating an intense gravitational field and using that field to distort space/time, bringing the destination to the source, and allowing you to cross many light years of space in little time and without traveling in a linear mode near the speed of light.

I'm less bothered by the wording of this passage now than I used to be, although I still think it's misleading. If you are distorting spacetime with a gravitational field, it produces a very specific kind of distortion, and a very specific kind of attraction. That's what gravity IS – a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity. And gravity attracts EVERYTHING. A gravitational field is a gravitational field...you can't pick and choose which objects it has an effect on. So, going by what Lazar says here, I still say that if you were to generate a gravitational field intense enough to warp spacetime and "bring the destination to the source" you'll also bring everything else in the nearby universe to the source too! If Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this back in his "Area 51" lab, every object on the face of the Earth would have rushed into New Mexico. Before they crashed back in the 50's, the alien saucers would have sucked the Earth right out of orbit!

Now I'm no expert in general relativity, but I believe that there ARE solutions in GR which do involve distortions of spacetime that are not "gravitational" in nature. (In other words they would not "attract" things outside of the distortion.) There are serious scientists that do serious work on wormholes and warp bubbles and other mechanisms which could allow faster-than-light travel by taking advantage of distortions in spacetime. As this research stands right now, it seems clear that the energy requirements which would be required by this kind of travel are unimaginable by any standards – even the most fanciful extrapolations of alien technology. I'm talking about an entire star's-worth or even a galaxy's-worth of energy! More mass/energy than could be contained in a tiny saucer, or even all of New Mexico for that matter.

There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave" theory which states that gravity is a wave, and the other is a theory which includes "gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which perform as gravity, which by the way, is total nonsense.

These statements by Lazar are "total nonsense". There is only ONE currently accepted theory of gravity: General Relativity. In GR, gravity is described as a distortion of spacetime, not as a particle or a wave. There are phenomena known as "gravitational waves" which exist in GR, but this does not seem to be what Lazar is talking about. Lazar says that gravity IS a wave. It isn't a wave. The "gravitons" which he speaks of are a feature of QUANTUM gravitational theories, and I think they require a little explanation.

All physicists realize that the theories of QM and GR are incomplete, because they are mutually incompatible. In order to have a complete theory, theoretical physicists are looking to combine the two into a unified theory which will involve a quantum theory of gravity. There are currently no quantum theories of gravity that work.  But even though a satisfactory theory does not yet exist, there is nothing at all nonsensical about gravitons. When an adequate quantum theory of gravity IS formulated, the energy of the gravitational field will be quantized. This quantum of the gravitational field is what physicists call the graviton. It is no more nonsensical than the photon - which is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.

(To add to the confusion of Lazar's statement, in any quantum theory of gravity, as in all quantum theories, the graviton will be, in a sense, BOTH a particle AND a wave!)

The fact that gravity is a wave has caused mainstream scientists to surmise numerous sub-atomic particles which don't actually exist and this has caused great complexity and confusion in the study of particle physics.

As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking about here. Surmising particles that don't exist? I can't think of a single particle whose existence has been postulated as a result of gravitational theories. Perhaps the graviton is one, but that's about it.

You must have at least an atom of substance for it to be considered "matter". At least a proton and an electron and in most cases a neutron. Anything short of an atom such as upquarks and downquarks which make up protons and neutrons; or protons, neutrons, or electrons, individually are considered to be mass and do not constitute "matter" until they form an atom.

These are peculiar and nonstandard definitions. The standard use of the term "matter" includes anything which has mass. Even a single quark is considered to be a particle of matter. If a quark isn't "matter" than what is it? All elementary particles are either matter particles or force-carrying particles. An electron is a mater particle, and so is a quark.

It may seem like a small point, but I think that errors like these are what  make Lazar's "theory" so dubious. How can we give much consideration to someone who claims to be overthrowing the foundations of particle physics, when it's fairly obvious that  he isn't even familiar with the terminology?

Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the "strong nuclear force" in mainstream physics ...

This is the place where Lazar begins to get him self in real trouble. As it is understood now, the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. Such a statement shows either a complete lack of understanding of the physics of the Standard Model of particle interactions, or a BLATANT attempt at deception. The equations and coupling strengths which describe the two forces are totally different and unrelated. The strong force couples only to quarks and gluons. The gravitational force couples to all particles with mass. The strong force is extremely short range. The range of gravity is infinite. The gravitational coupling constant is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the strong interaction. There is NO BASIS for using the word "gravity" to describe the strong interaction IN ANY WAY.

If Mr. Lazar has formulated a NEW model in which the two forces are really the same, then he has unified gravity with the other three forces of nature, and he should publish it now and collect his Nobel Prize. If he DOES NOT have such a new theory then his statement here is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

It's not good enough to just call the strong interaction "gravity A wave". You've got to demonstrate that it actually has SOMETHING to do with gravity if you're going to attach that name to it! The words by themselves are meaningless. I want to see some equations. Otherwise, this statement is not only wrong, but utterly incomprehensible.

...it should be obvious that a large, single star system, binary star system, or multiple star system would have had more of the prerequisite mass and electromagnetic energy present during their creations.

Now we get into some fuzzy astronomy.  Mr. Lazar doesn't seem to understand where heavy elements come from, or how they are formed.

First we have to assume that when Lazar says "large" he means "massive." The "largeness" of a star says nothing about its mass. In five or ten billion years, the sun will be as large as the orbit of Mars. A star's size changes drastically during its lifetime. It's pretty clear that what Lazar should be talking about here is the MASS of the star.

The next section is a little vague, but he SEEMS to be suggesting that his element 115, the alien fuel source, which doesn't exist on the Earth, should be present in those solar systems that were more massive at their inception. The implication here is that a star system which condensed out of a more massive primordial cloud should have a greater abundance of heavier elements. This is quite incorrect.

Heavy elements – all elements heavier than iron – are not formed during the normal life cycles of stars. The only time when these nuclei are "cooked" is during the collapse and subsequent explosion of supernovae. The supernova explosion then spreads heavy elements throughout the galaxy. For this reason, the abundances of heavy elements in any particular star system depend NOT upon the properties of the current star, but on the properties of the nearby stars of the PREVIOUS GENERATION! Therefore, all of the star systems in a particular region of the galaxy will have essentially the same abundances of heavy elements, regardless of the mass of star. If element 115 is STABLE, as Lazar claims it to be, then it should be created in supernova explosions and it should exist EVERYWHERE!

The most important attribute of these heavier, stable elements is that the gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own gravity A field around them...

No naturally occurring atoms on earth have enough protons and neutrons for the cumulative gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom...

Since Mr. Lazar has already identified this gravity A wave with the nuclear force, he is essentially claiming that the nuclear force of element 115 extends beyond the limits of the "115-ium" atom. (I'm tempted to call it Lazarium...and somewhat surprised that he doesn't!!) This is simply not possible, given the known properties of the nuclear force. The past 50 years of probing the nucleus have taught us that the range of the nuclear force is VERY short, and protons and neutrons only feel the pull of their nearest neighbors in a nucleus. Because of this fact, the nuclear force extends out to about the same distance away from a nucleus NO MATTER HOW MASSIVE THE NUCLEUS IS. This fact is fundamental to the science of nuclear physics.

Once again, if Mr. Lazar has a NEW MODEL of the nuclear interaction which explains the properties and decay rates of known nuclei...which can predict the abundances of elements synthesized in the Big Bang...which can describe all of the properties of nuclear reactions which take place inside of stars...all as well as our current theories do all of these things (which is VERY well!) then he should publish it and collect his Nobel Prize. If not, then once again his statements make NO SENSE in the light of everything that we know about nuclear interactions.

Now even though the distance that the gravity A wave extends past the perimeter of the atom is infinitesimal, it is accessible and it has amplitude, wavelength and frequency, just like any OTHER wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. Once you can access the gravity A wave, you can amplify it just like we amplify OTHER electromagnetic waves.

(MY EMPHASIS)
I have emphasized the use of the word "other" in this paragraph to show that Mr. Lazar apparently thinks that his "gravity A wave", which if you recall, is also the strong nuclear force, is ALSO an electromagnetic wave. Perhaps he HAS formulated a "Grand Unified Theory" after all! Or perhaps this is just another example of his careless use of scientific terms.

Conclusions

I want to take some time here to talk about scientific progress, because there is one common objection to my critique of Lazar's scenario. People will often say "Modern science could be wrong. Newton was wrong! Lazar could be right!" Yes. That is correct. In fact, modern science almost certainly IS "wrong." But the only real test of a theory in science is that it works. Newton's Laws worked. They still do in most situations. Einstein's theories are better – they are more accurate and they work in more situations. New theories will continue to come along that are more precise and more generally applicable than the older theories, and these new theories will be tested by experiments until they supplant the old ones. That is how science has progressed for the past 400 years.

So it is not enough to SAY  that modern science is wrong. You have to demonstrate that you have something that is better. And that "better" theory needs to do everything that the old theory does, and then do more. And chances are that it won't completely turn the old theory on it's head – because we already know that the old theories work too well. It is not possible to create a new theory until you understand the old one well enough to present a coherent alternative. Calling current science "total nonsense" is nice rhetoric, and no doubt convincing to many non-scientists who feel alienated from science and look on scientists as a kind of modern priesthood of arcane knowledge. But science is a process – not a body of knowledge.

I can't possibly demonstrate conclusively that Lazar's mechanism is impossible. All that I can hope to demonstrate here is that his scenario would require a COMPLETE overhaul of our theories of gravity and particle physics in order to work. Not just some minor changes...I'm talking from the ground up. Mr. Lazar makes no mention of this fact, and he proposes no alternative theories. But, if Lazar's scenario is true, then we will NEED some new theories, because we are wrong about a great many things. We don't understand gravity. We don't understand nuclear interactions. We don't understand spacetime. We don't understand stellar evolution. However, considering Mr. Lazar's careless use of language, his casual redefinition of scientific terms, and the complete lack of details in his presentation, I'm willing to bet the farm that it is actually Lazar who doesn't understand any of these things.

But wait.....There's an addendum!!

Lazar explains on his current webpage (www.boblazar.com) how his element 115 not only serves as the generator of the Gravity A wave, but ALSO as the fuel for a matter/antimatter reactor that powers the rest of the saucer. Let's take a close look at Lazar's explanation of this reactor...

"The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter, which in this case is the gas, and the anti-matter, collide and annihilate totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator. "

Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and matter are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come from? From element 115 when it is "bombarded with a proton" by the ship's reactor.  Hmmm. And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would your reactor have to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton?? Well, exactly the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get back out when the antiproton annihilates? EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!!

(Actually, you can't just make an antiproton by itself, you have to make a proton/anti-proton pair. So your reactor needs to put in 2 "protons-worth" of mass-energy into each proton in the beam.)

If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board, your system produces NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of energy in, and you get 2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST this system could do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would more likely USE far more energy than it would make.

Conservation of energy rears it's ugly head, and once again - it looks like Bob's saucer is going nowhere fast!

I have highlighted in bold a statement by Dr. David L. Morgan that many in this community should attempt to grasp!

Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.05.24, 09:37:10
A quick search for opposing views on Bob Lazar and this page is top pick:

http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2011.01.07

This page contains a link to Lazar Critique by Dr. David L. Morgan:

In 1996, I was asked to review the content of  a Bob Lazar website by an online acquaintance. Since then, my critique has been posted to Usenet discussion boards, featured on web pages, and taken on something of a life of its own. I still get email about it monthly, which is quite amusing, considering it's been almost 5 years since I wrote it. Since the original posting was intended to be an informal email, the tone was somewhat harsh and flippant, and some sections were a bit too dismissive. I decided recently that I would try to put together a  revision of the now-infamous paper. That revision is presented below.

After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the "physics" of his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint.  Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don't feel that Lazar's pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

I will focus on the parts of Lazar's text which I took the most exception with- most of these excerpts relate to particle physics, which is my field. Lazar's text is in boldface. He begins by describing the principle behind interstellar travel...

This is accomplished by generating an intense gravitational field and using that field to distort space/time, bringing the destination to the source, and allowing you to cross many light years of space in little time and without traveling in a linear mode near the speed of light.

I'm less bothered by the wording of this passage now than I used to be, although I still think it's misleading. If you are distorting spacetime with a gravitational field, it produces a very specific kind of distortion, and a very specific kind of attraction. That's what gravity IS – a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity. And gravity attracts EVERYTHING. A gravitational field is a gravitational field...you can't pick and choose which objects it has an effect on. So, going by what Lazar says here, I still say that if you were to generate a gravitational field intense enough to warp spacetime and "bring the destination to the source" you'll also bring everything else in the nearby universe to the source too! If Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this back in his "Area 51" lab, every object on the face of the Earth would have rushed into New Mexico. Before they crashed back in the 50's, the alien saucers would have sucked the Earth right out of orbit!

Now I'm no expert in general relativity, but I believe that there ARE solutions in GR which do involve distortions of spacetime that are not "gravitational" in nature. (In other words they would not "attract" things outside of the distortion.) There are serious scientists that do serious work on wormholes and warp bubbles and other mechanisms which could allow faster-than-light travel by taking advantage of distortions in spacetime. As this research stands right now, it seems clear that the energy requirements which would be required by this kind of travel are unimaginable by any standards – even the most fanciful extrapolations of alien technology. I'm talking about an entire star's-worth or even a galaxy's-worth of energy! More mass/energy than could be contained in a tiny saucer, or even all of New Mexico for that matter.

There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave" theory which states that gravity is a wave, and the other is a theory which includes "gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which perform as gravity, which by the way, is total nonsense.

These statements by Lazar are "total nonsense". There is only ONE currently accepted theory of gravity: General Relativity. In GR, gravity is described as a distortion of spacetime, not as a particle or a wave. There are phenomena known as "gravitational waves" which exist in GR, but this does not seem to be what Lazar is talking about. Lazar says that gravity IS a wave. It isn't a wave. The "gravitons" which he speaks of are a feature of QUANTUM gravitational theories, and I think they require a little explanation.

All physicists realize that the theories of QM and GR are incomplete, because they are mutually incompatible. In order to have a complete theory, theoretical physicists are looking to combine the two into a unified theory which will involve a quantum theory of gravity. There are currently no quantum theories of gravity that work.  But even though a satisfactory theory does not yet exist, there is nothing at all nonsensical about gravitons. When an adequate quantum theory of gravity IS formulated, the energy of the gravitational field will be quantized. This quantum of the gravitational field is what physicists call the graviton. It is no more nonsensical than the photon - which is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.

(To add to the confusion of Lazar's statement, in any quantum theory of gravity, as in all quantum theories, the graviton will be, in a sense, BOTH a particle AND a wave!)

The fact that gravity is a wave has caused mainstream scientists to surmise numerous sub-atomic particles which don't actually exist and this has caused great complexity and confusion in the study of particle physics.

As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking about here. Surmising particles that don't exist? I can't think of a single particle whose existence has been postulated as a result of gravitational theories. Perhaps the graviton is one, but that's about it.

You must have at least an atom of substance for it to be considered "matter". At least a proton and an electron and in most cases a neutron. Anything short of an atom such as upquarks and downquarks which make up protons and neutrons; or protons, neutrons, or electrons, individually are considered to be mass and do not constitute "matter" until they form an atom.

These are peculiar and nonstandard definitions. The standard use of the term "matter" includes anything which has mass. Even a single quark is considered to be a particle of matter. If a quark isn't "matter" than what is it? All elementary particles are either matter particles or force-carrying particles. An electron is a mater particle, and so is a quark.

It may seem like a small point, but I think that errors like these are what  make Lazar's "theory" so dubious. How can we give much consideration to someone who claims to be overthrowing the foundations of particle physics, when it's fairly obvious that  he isn't even familiar with the terminology?

Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the "strong nuclear force" in mainstream physics ...

This is the place where Lazar begins to get him self in real trouble. As it is understood now, the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. Such a statement shows either a complete lack of understanding of the physics of the Standard Model of particle interactions, or a BLATANT attempt at deception. The equations and coupling strengths which describe the two forces are totally different and unrelated. The strong force couples only to quarks and gluons. The gravitational force couples to all particles with mass. The strong force is extremely short range. The range of gravity is infinite. The gravitational coupling constant is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the strong interaction. There is NO BASIS for using the word "gravity" to describe the strong interaction IN ANY WAY.

If Mr. Lazar has formulated a NEW model in which the two forces are really the same, then he has unified gravity with the other three forces of nature, and he should publish it now and collect his Nobel Prize. If he DOES NOT have such a new theory then his statement here is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

It's not good enough to just call the strong interaction "gravity A wave". You've got to demonstrate that it actually has SOMETHING to do with gravity if you're going to attach that name to it! The words by themselves are meaningless. I want to see some equations. Otherwise, this statement is not only wrong, but utterly incomprehensible.

...it should be obvious that a large, single star system, binary star system, or multiple star system would have had more of the prerequisite mass and electromagnetic energy present during their creations.

Now we get into some fuzzy astronomy.  Mr. Lazar doesn't seem to understand where heavy elements come from, or how they are formed.

First we have to assume that when Lazar says "large" he means "massive." The "largeness" of a star says nothing about its mass. In five or ten billion years, the sun will be as large as the orbit of Mars. A star's size changes drastically during its lifetime. It's pretty clear that what Lazar should be talking about here is the MASS of the star.

The next section is a little vague, but he SEEMS to be suggesting that his element 115, the alien fuel source, which doesn't exist on the Earth, should be present in those solar systems that were more massive at their inception. The implication here is that a star system which condensed out of a more massive primordial cloud should have a greater abundance of heavier elements. This is quite incorrect.

Heavy elements – all elements heavier than iron – are not formed during the normal life cycles of stars. The only time when these nuclei are "cooked" is during the collapse and subsequent explosion of supernovae. The supernova explosion then spreads heavy elements throughout the galaxy. For this reason, the abundances of heavy elements in any particular star system depend NOT upon the properties of the current star, but on the properties of the nearby stars of the PREVIOUS GENERATION! Therefore, all of the star systems in a particular region of the galaxy will have essentially the same abundances of heavy elements, regardless of the mass of star. If element 115 is STABLE, as Lazar claims it to be, then it should be created in supernova explosions and it should exist EVERYWHERE!

The most important attribute of these heavier, stable elements is that the gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own gravity A field around them...

No naturally occurring atoms on earth have enough protons and neutrons for the cumulative gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom...

Since Mr. Lazar has already identified this gravity A wave with the nuclear force, he is essentially claiming that the nuclear force of element 115 extends beyond the limits of the "115-ium" atom. (I'm tempted to call it Lazarium...and somewhat surprised that he doesn't!!) This is simply not possible, given the known properties of the nuclear force. The past 50 years of probing the nucleus have taught us that the range of the nuclear force is VERY short, and protons and neutrons only feel the pull of their nearest neighbors in a nucleus. Because of this fact, the nuclear force extends out to about the same distance away from a nucleus NO MATTER HOW MASSIVE THE NUCLEUS IS. This fact is fundamental to the science of nuclear physics.

Once again, if Mr. Lazar has a NEW MODEL of the nuclear interaction which explains the properties and decay rates of known nuclei...which can predict the abundances of elements synthesized in the Big Bang...which can describe all of the properties of nuclear reactions which take place inside of stars...all as well as our current theories do all of these things (which is VERY well!) then he should publish it and collect his Nobel Prize. If not, then once again his statements make NO SENSE in the light of everything that we know about nuclear interactions.

Now even though the distance that the gravity A wave extends past the perimeter of the atom is infinitesimal, it is accessible and it has amplitude, wavelength and frequency, just like any OTHER wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. Once you can access the gravity A wave, you can amplify it just like we amplify OTHER electromagnetic waves.

(MY EMPHASIS)
I have emphasized the use of the word "other" in this paragraph to show that Mr. Lazar apparently thinks that his "gravity A wave", which if you recall, is also the strong nuclear force, is ALSO an electromagnetic wave. Perhaps he HAS formulated a "Grand Unified Theory" after all! Or perhaps this is just another example of his careless use of scientific terms.

Conclusions

I want to take some time here to talk about scientific progress, because there is one common objection to my critique of Lazar's scenario. People will often say "Modern science could be wrong. Newton was wrong! Lazar could be right!" Yes. That is correct. In fact, modern science almost certainly IS "wrong." But the only real test of a theory in science is that it works. Newton's Laws worked. They still do in most situations. Einstein's theories are better – they are more accurate and they work in more situations. New theories will continue to come along that are more precise and more generally applicable than the older theories, and these new theories will be tested by experiments until they supplant the old ones. That is how science has progressed for the past 400 years.

So it is not enough to SAY  that modern science is wrong. You have to demonstrate that you have something that is better. And that "better" theory needs to do everything that the old theory does, and then do more. And chances are that it won't completely turn the old theory on it's head – because we already know that the old theories work too well. It is not possible to create a new theory until you understand the old one well enough to present a coherent alternative. Calling current science "total nonsense" is nice rhetoric, and no doubt convincing to many non-scientists who feel alienated from science and look on scientists as a kind of modern priesthood of arcane knowledge. But science is a process – not a body of knowledge.

I can't possibly demonstrate conclusively that Lazar's mechanism is impossible. All that I can hope to demonstrate here is that his scenario would require a COMPLETE overhaul of our theories of gravity and particle physics in order to work. Not just some minor changes...I'm talking from the ground up. Mr. Lazar makes no mention of this fact, and he proposes no alternative theories. But, if Lazar's scenario is true, then we will NEED some new theories, because we are wrong about a great many things. We don't understand gravity. We don't understand nuclear interactions. We don't understand spacetime. We don't understand stellar evolution. However, considering Mr. Lazar's careless use of language, his casual redefinition of scientific terms, and the complete lack of details in his presentation, I'm willing to bet the farm that it is actually Lazar who doesn't understand any of these things.

But wait.....There's an addendum!!

Lazar explains on his current webpage (www.boblazar.com) how his element 115 not only serves as the generator of the Gravity A wave, but ALSO as the fuel for a matter/antimatter reactor that powers the rest of the saucer. Let's take a close look at Lazar's explanation of this reactor...

"The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter, which in this case is the gas, and the anti-matter, collide and annihilate totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator. "

Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and matter are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come from? From element 115 when it is "bombarded with a proton" by the ship's reactor.  Hmmm. And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would your reactor have to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton?? Well, exactly the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get back out when the antiproton annihilates? EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!!

(Actually, you can't just make an antiproton by itself, you have to make a proton/anti-proton pair. So your reactor needs to put in 2 "protons-worth" of mass-energy into each proton in the beam.)

If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board, your system produces NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of energy in, and you get 2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST this system could do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would more likely USE far more energy than it would make.

Conservation of energy rears it's ugly head, and once again - it looks like Bob's saucer is going nowhere fast!

I have highlighted in bold a statement by Dr. David L. Morgan that many in this community should attempt to grasp!

Sounds to much like good old scientist and physicist don't want some other fellow coming up with something they don't know about-situation normal.
As far as it taking just as much(if not more)power to produce antimatter than what you would get back from it is just rubbish. It doesn't have to be produced,it only needs to be separated. Lets look at crude oil and gasoline. The gasoline which has the higher energy per unit volume also has to be separated from the crude oil,and it doesn't take as much energy to separate it than what you get back.

It's always the same shit with this stuff and physicist,-->if we don't know about it,it is wrong-bla bla bla.
No wonder we are getting no where. Once again,a case of those having no clue as to what gravity is(the gravitational force) saying some one else doesn't know what there talking about C.C

And the really funny thing is that the Einstein equations are used in GPS and they work perfectly.

Funny that.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.05.24, 10:56:43
And the really funny thing is that the Einstein equations are used in GPS and they work perfectly.

Funny that.

And a GPS has !what! to do with creating antimatter?

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.05.24, 11:34:49
The important aspect of Lazar's testimony is not the element 115. I actually found that  part  disappointing - because it is exotic science.
I have been involved in some research I cannot talk about, and what convinced me was the space time manoeuvres and the candle effect
during frozen time.
At the very least you can understand why inertia is not a problem, why right angle manoeuvres are easy and why ufo's are mostly invisible unless
stationary.
Hint ufo watchers:  Get some infra red/night vision.  Ufo's leave a heat trail.

I don't blame people for their statements because they are based on their experience.
I make statements based on my experience.

I've probably actually said enough on these matters.
Those in the know are aware of what I am talking about.
The scientific theories aren't wrong - they are just incomplete.

QuoteI have been involved in some research I cannot talk about

Of course you have ^-^

QuoteI've probably actually said enough on these matters.

As usual-like all such claiments,you have actually said nothing at all.

QuoteThose in the know are aware of what I am talking about.

Those in the know are more often than not,those that no nothing at all. No one will know what your talking about Aking,as you havnt talked about anything.

QuoteThe scientific theories aren't wrong - they are just incomplete.

They are incomplete because those in the know dont really know.

@Aking.21

QuoteHint ufo watchers:  Get some infra red/night vision.  Ufo's leave a heat trail.

A while back I was thinking about my UFO observation and thought if we were actually serious about finding the truth then why wouldn't we setup an IR camera with free computer tracking software. The software simply looks for changes in the pixels of the IR camera and if there is movement within the field of view then it starts recording and tracks the motion with a tilt/pan servo controller. It would also be fairly easy to use the servo position data to plot the course of any objects relative to our position. I mean it seems reasonable and if there were craft of any sort within range then we would have tangible proof.  

The camera's could also be networked over the internet and a hit on one camera could be uploaded so the next camera knew where the object was coming from and a general sense of where it may be going. It seems pretty straight forward and may be a good candidate for crowdfunding... hell I would buy into it if the price could be kept to a reasonable level near $100.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.05.24, 14:26:30
@Aking.21

A while back I was thinking about my UFO observation and thought if we were actually serious about finding the truth then why wouldn't we setup an IR camera with free computer tracking software. The software simply looks for changes in the pixels of the IR camera and if there is movement within the field of view then it starts recording and tracks the motion with a tilt/pan servo controller. It would also be fairly easy to use the servo position data to plot the course of any objects relative to our position. I mean it seems reasonable and if there were craft of any sort within range then we would have tangible proof.  

The camera's could also be networked over the internet and a hit on one camera could be uploaded so the next camera knew where the object was coming from and a general sense of where it may be going. It seems pretty straight forward and may be a good candidate for crowdfunding... hell I would buy into it if the price could be kept to a reasonable level near $100.

AC

Cool
We will be able to watch all the warm blooded animals that fly in black and white. O0

Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.24, 10:19:34
Sounds to much like good old scientist and physicist don't want some other fellow coming up with something they don't know about-situation normal.

Please read the paragraphs I highlighted in bold, again.

Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.24, 10:19:34
As far as it taking just as much(if not more)power to produce antimatter than what you would get back from it is just rubbish. It doesn't have to be produced,it only needs to be separated. Lets look at crude oil and gasoline. The gasoline which has the higher energy per unit volume also has to be separated from the crude oil,and it doesn't take as much energy to separate it than what you get back.

Please try and refute yourself before posting rubbish, here is an example of the kind of search you could have done:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/how-much-energy-does-take-produce-gallon-gasoline-13545.html

The beauty of gasoline is that it is a highly energy dense fuel with a small volume that is very stable under it's standard operating conditions. You can fill (pump) your tank with say 60 litres of gasoline in under 3 minutes! How long would it take to get the equivalent amount of electrical energy into an EV battery bank ?

Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.24, 10:19:34
It's always the same shit with this stuff and physicist,-->if we don't know about it,it is wrong-bla bla bla.
No wonder we are getting no where. Once again,a case of those having no clue as to what gravity is(the gravitational force) saying some one else doesn't know what there talking about C.C

That is not what Dr Morgan said at all. (assuming he is a real Dr and critic of Lazar, I have not checked)

Interviewer to Dr Edward Teller: If I ask the question,"  Do you know Bob Lazar"
Teller:" I will sit quietly and not answer"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDfN-VY67xM

Tells you everything you need to know.

For those who don't know Teller

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/tel0bio-1

I stand by all my posts.

element 115 has finally been found/created

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24119-fresh-evidence-emerges-for-superheavy-element-115.html#.VWJCQJDi4hs

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.05.24, 20:46:28
Tells you everything you need to know.

Correction, it tells you everything you need to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JR2zQRqiro

David Wilcock lecture audio only but bang up to date.
Beyond crazy.
Free energy, ufos NWO the lot.

He does go on, doesn't he.

I listened to the whole thing, even the mind-control guided meditation at the end. Now I feel really strange. I expect to meet an eight-foot tall blue-purple feathered alien at any  moment. With love of course.    :D

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.31, 14:10:08
He does go on, doesn't he.

I listened to the whole thing, even the mind-control guided meditation at the end. Now I feel really strange. I expect to meet an eight-foot tall blue-purple feathered alien at any  moment. With love of course.    :D

Hey-dont knock the mind controll TK.
I can produce sounds that will give you a headache,and sounds that will make you feel calm and relaxed-hell i can even make sounds that will send shivers down your back(fingernails down the blackboard). Im still working on trying to get some clown to rob a bank for me--that one seems a little harder to find the right pitch. C.C

The trouble is I can "verify" a lot of what Wilcock says.
e. g. I spent a couple of days watching the live feed from the International space station and guess what?
It's  1 TIME DELAYED!
     2  A blue screen is put up almost once per orbit.

So the only chance we have of seeing the truth is if the censor makes a mistake.
So much for freedom.
The whole thing stinks.

  At the latest Idaho conference, it seems Be dini is claiming a self-running device -- ho ho, ho hum, or hum-drum?

QuoteHere are a few updates relating to the conference and the much anticipated release of the first presentation. Also, John Be dini showed a self-running motor, which started with a 20+ year old corroded D cell battery and after an hour, the motor was running at full speed. It turned a rotor with a propeller showing mechanical work while blinking LED's and keeping the input battery charged up. We'll post pictures of this machine very soon but there is a topic below that is related to this machine. And also a new Bedini solar charge technology... and of course, our first presentation release from the conference!
 

ENERGY CONFERENCE PHOTO ALBUMS

Here are 9 photo albums from the 2015 Energy Science & Technology Conference. http://energyscienceconference.com/photo-gallery/2015-photo-gallery/

This is most of the first day except for photos of John Be dini's presentation where he shows his self running window motor, which is really 3 machines in 1 - will post those soon as well as the photos from the 2nd and 3rd day.



AUGUST 3 (3 more days!) - PAUL BABCOCK - MAGNETIC ENERGY SECRETS PART 3

If you don't have parts 1 & 2, wait for this release because you'll be able to get all 3 at a huge discount.

To get a feel for what Paul shares in this presentation, watch this YouTube video: http://emediapress.com/2015/06/25/advanced-magnetics-beats-lenzs-law/

Very interesting Steve and will definitely cause a stir.
People are going to shred this one for years...or...it works !

I just read the newsletter thing in my email and noted the following:

QuoteSELF RUNNING WINDOW MOTOR DISCUSSION

In 2007, there were claims by someone to have a window motor that ran on a capacitor that stayed charged up. It was done by modifying the basic window motor circuit that has been on John ######'s website for many years. It is different from the self-running 3 in 1 motor that John shared at the conference this year but is related. Many of these old posts have been copied over to Energy Science Forum and some explanations as to what is happening may be posted soon. You can check out this thread - stay tuned: http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=388

A few years ago, there was a video on Google Videos, before they owned YouTube, where John Berdini was running a motor. That motor had a solid state relay, I think, and it was on test to see if the mods that a guy had come up with really did work to make it a self runner.
He said something similar to 'well it seems to work as described'. Have always remembered that video and wouldn't mind knowing if other folks remember it ?
To know what that was all about and whether it's related to this motor shown recently.


Edit - yes it is !
Page 6 of the linked forum above, where Aaron goes into the discussions from back in 2007.
It is the same motor seen in that old video.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.08.01, 19:26:44
  At the latest Idaho conference, it seems Be dini is claiming a self-running device -- ho ho, ho hum, or hum-drum?

A self-running motor that needs to be connected to a battery in order to run...... ? How about haw haw haw......


;D

Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.08.01, 23:00:15
Very interesting Steve and will definitely cause a stir.
People are going to shred this one for years...or...it works !

I just read the newsletter thing in my email and noted the following:
A few years ago, there was a video on Google Videos, before they owned YouTube, where John Berdini was running a motor. That motor had a solid state relay, I think, and it was on test to see if the mods that a guy had come up with really did work to make it a self runner.
He said something similar to 'well it seems to work as described'. Have always remembered that video and wouldn't mind knowing if other folks remember it ?
To know what that was all about and whether it's related to this motor shown recently.


Edit - yes it is !
Page 6 of the linked forum above, where Aaron goes into the discussions from back in 2007.
It is the same motor seen in that old video.

It is quite easy to show a pulse motor running off of and charging that same dead battery.
It dose take a well balanced pulse motor though.

Guys we are not allowed to talk about John bedini, especially anything negative about him or his devices.  O0

Tinman:  2 hours 18 minutes in and onwards...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TUsaQw9xY

explains everything.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.08.02, 08:41:33
Tinman:  2 hours 18 minutes in and onwards...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TUsaQw9xY

explains everything.

Downloading now.
Cheers Aking.21

Good day All

Just wanted to post an *interesting* simulation I've been playing with on LTspice:

I will say I have spent severals hours now, and I can change the  Rser & Cpar and continually get *interesting* results.
Guess I will have to build this one...........

Anyone care to tell me where my mistake is?

take care, peace
lost_bro

p.s.  wanted to add that the current source is set to 0.1microampere.

Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.05.24, 02:02:40
I just can't see how it could be possible for the rate of time to change in one place and not everywhere at once. That can't work as I see it.

I can see how a clock would work differently in orbit to how it works on Earth though. And that some formula is needed to correct the clocks for GPS.

Time has no inherent rate. Time is a measure of change. Rates of change can vary depending on what change is being measured. A "day" on Mars is longer than a "day" on Earth. Time is always tied to something changing and the rate of the change can vary. Since time is a measure of some change of some thing the measure can change with the relative rates of change between the object that is the basis of the change being measured and the instrument doing that measurement.

On the other hand, there is this theory:http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time)

Quote
The Universe is eternal in some form or other.

Ask a big bang theorist exactly where the stuff that went bang came from.

1) Nothing cannot go bang.. period.

2) Something cannot be created from nothing.

3) Therefore everything that "is" has always "been" in existence (in some form or other).

4) So there is no beginning and no end to everything that makes up the Universe.

5) And considering that, I say that time is a man made concept and time did not exist as such until man invented it.

6) Because of the orderly movements of the Cosmos we are able to exist as living humans.

7)  If the Universe reverts to Chaos then we become simply matter and time becomes non existent again.  

8) No humans or other highly intelligent beings that keep track of time means no time.

That's why the Big Bang Theory is still called a theory.
That the universe has always existed and will always exist has always been my belief and I believe it is infinite. Some theoretical physicists are starting to think along the same lines:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#ajTabs (http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#ajTabs)

Regardless of whether humans or other sentient beings exist or not, change will still occur in the universe. IMO, the only time that time will cease to exist is when there is no longer any change anywhere.

But the burning question is, If I am standing in the woods talking and my wife isn't around to hear me, am I still wrong?

Quote from: thx1138 on 2015.08.04, 02:03:53

But the burning question is, If I am standing in the woods talking and my wife isn't around to hear me, am I still wrong?

Hmm.....

Doesn't that depend upon the speed at which she is moving *towards* or *away* from you at the time of the actual talking. :D

take care, peace
lost_bro

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.08.02, 08:41:33
Tinman:  2 hours 18 minutes in and onwards...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TUsaQw9xY

explains everything.

Interesting. What are your thoughts Brad?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.08.04, 03:10:26
Interesting. What are your thoughts Brad?

Hi 99,

I'm not answering for Brad, but I can answer from personal experience.

The video has a lot of truths, it does all come down to the money tree, let someone cut a few roots because they are no longer needed and the tree may die, and so no more fruit(money). That was explained to me many years ago and still stands now. They (the ones in power to loose) will do anything to stop that, always has been since we lived in caves, and I can't see it changing until we all are on the same level money wise, which is an impossible thing.

Man is greedy for power, and money is power. Man also passes through life with different opportunities from one and the other, so each person is different in their abilities and so here conflict of interest has been created.

How much can we rock the boat? Hmmm that is a difficult one to answer, but I think energy is one item that could and should be dealt with as an item which is freely available to all in this world at cost that means getting rid of the energy barons ;)

regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.08.04, 03:10:26
Interesting. What are your thoughts Brad?

On which part?
The part where he says-get your device out there,spread it all over the internet,put up video's and information of each part or progressive step?-->sounds good.
Or-(in reference to Neil Armstrong)-if you ever let out what you know,we will kill you,your wife,your children,and your grandchildren?.-->Sounds bad.

Or maybe the part about technowlagy going no where in the past 50 years-still the same old internal combustion engine,still the same travel time from one country to the next by plane,!still no cure for the common cold-->!BUT HELL!-we have robots on mars that we control from earth.

What i think is people really need to open there eyes as to what is really going on here.

OH-by the way.
For the first time in my working life(31 years now) i am being audited by the tax department lol-Just a coincidence i guess O0

Quote from: TinMan on 2015.08.04, 11:16:48

OH-by the way.
For the first time in my working life(31 years now) i am being audited by the tax department lol-Just a coincidence i guess O0

Yep, the usual dirty tricks department, careful, putting the frighteners on the wife is a good one, but I will tell you something, if I see that guy again, all of his 6' 6" ex SAS now MI5 @ around 55 yrs old, he just might not live to see 56 ;)

regards

Mike 8)

So, how to proceed?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.08.04, 13:33:03
So, how to proceed?

That is the million $ question isn't it?  ;)

regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: TinMan on 2015.08.04, 11:16:48
The part where he says-get your device out there,spread it all over the internet,put up video's and information of each part or progressive step?-->sounds good.

Actually, I think that's the only way it can happen. Not my personal experience but my father's: After he came back from WW II he ran a beer distribtorship. In the 50's he invented a machine (hydraulic back then) that had a valve that controlled its motions. The valve was "programmable" in that it could be changed to suit the needs of the customer. The machine's function was to palletize packages of a fixed size, in his business that was cases of beer. But it could be programmed to palletize bags of chemicals or just about anything with a fixed size and a given stacking pattern. He obtained patents on the valve and the machine. He showed the plans to some "investors" who proceeded to build and sell the machine and used their profits to tie him up in a patent suit until he went bankrupt. It was the forerunner of automated warehousing systems.

The lesson is that a patent is just as valuable as the money you have to defend it. If you are not prepared to hit the ground running with production and use the profits to defend the patent, you don't have a chance. Once you file the patent it is public knowledge.

QuoteOr-(in reference to Neil Armstrong)-if you ever let out what you know,we will kill you,your wife,your children,and your grandchildren?.-->Sounds bad.

If you have a world changing technology, you better be able to afford personal security for everyone in your family the minute you disclose it. If you hold back anything at all, the "secret" that makes it work, you have just painted a target on yourself. You will then be more valuable to your opposition dead rather than alive because if they kill you the secret gets buried with your body. In general, their attitude is "the ends justify the means" which leaves no means off the table as a viable option to attain their goals.

Quote
Or maybe the part about technology going no where in the past 50 years-still the same old internal combustion engine,still the same travel time from one country to the next by plane,!still no cure for the common cold-->!BUT HELL!-we have robots on mars that we control from earth.

That's actually what got me started down this road. It occurred to me that energy production hasn't changed much since the waterwheel used to grind flour. Hydroelectric is just a fancy waterwheel called a turbine connected to a generator. Ditto for coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. They just turn the water into steam to spin a turbine.

Quote
OH-by the way. For the first time in my working life(31 years now) i am being audited by the tax department lol-Just a coincidence i guess.

Been there, done that. No laughing matter. Get a professional to represent you. They know the game and every word you speak can be twisted, taken out of context, etc and used against you if you ever get to court. I used an ex-employee of the agency who had worked there for 20+ years. All correspondence went through him. All I ever did was identify myself and refer inquiries to him.

It is just radio transmitter plus receivers, just like Don Smith presented in model. Already invented 120 years ago.

Quote from: thx1138 on 2015.08.04, 02:03:53
But the burning question is, If I am standing in the woods talking and my wife isn't around to hear me, am I still wrong?

No, I think you are quite right.

The only thing that will make you wrong is if your will is unable to oppose the forces against you.  And isn't this an interesting concept.  You can be completely correct, but still be wrong.  Or should I say, wronged.

Speaking of which, how is the healing process coming along Mike?  Hopefully the worst of it is all behind you now.

Here is a thought:
I tried to find out some information and drew a blank.
Who owns the Australian Institute of Technology?
Who owns the joint ventures with Chinese companies and AIT?
Who owns Harrow private toffs school in England?
I obtained some info from a friend of the family who goes to a University in the uk.
Her response was that she heard that some Jewish investors owned some of the buildings on the campus.
So the NWO hides it's money in Further Education at zero tax rates.
Steals all the intellectual property and suppresses all "disruptive"  technologies.
Go figure:

It's just Human nature, the world is basically run by psychopathic criminals, newsflash, the world has always been run by Psychopathic Criminals, many people who desire or seek to control others have the mental afflictions aforementioned. People who do not seek to control others generally do not seek positions of control.

Order means control when it comes to Humans and other animals, without control there would be chaos. There is even the situation of controlled chaos.

I would imagine that if a person hurts the wallet of a powerful psychopath they are risking a lot even if they do not keep secrets. Kinda the same as the Mafia does, gotta make an example. Revealing everything would not guarantee
anything except that everything is revealed of course. If that is the objective then do not let fear hold you back.

..

Quote from: lost_bro on 2015.08.04, 02:27:13

Hmm.....

Doesn't that depend upon the speed at which she is moving *towards* or *away* from you at the time of the actual talking. :D

take care, peace
lost_bro

Well, if she's not around to hear me talking, I'm not sure her vector has any effect. Temperature may have an effect though.
http://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html (http://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html)

Quote from: thx1138 on 2015.08.04, 02:03:53


But the burning question is, If I am standing in the woods talking and my wife isn't around to hear me, am I still wrong?

I think the answer to that question is Yes.

However,

If there were no humans the passing of events would continue (Things will still happen) but being that "Time" as a relative term exists only in the human consciousness then that term will cease to exist. No term "Time" means no "Time" exists. Time as a Term was invented by Humans and is used only by humans.

If other beings exist they might describe the passing of events as "emit" or something.

The Universe will continue with or without Humans or even intelligent life, no end, it will just continue to exist without end, Time cannot define that or describe it as it has no end and is therefore unmeasurable.

..

Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.08.04, 13:33:03
So, how to proceed?

In regard to Sirius Disclosure? I guess that depends on what goal you are proceeding toward.

After letting it rumble around in my brain overnight there's something about Sirius Disclosure that just doesn't ring true to me. I haven't yet been able to put my finger on it. I'll probably have to watch it a couple of more times.

I don't see how it changes anything though. It can be completely true, completely false, or somewhere in between.

If it's completely true it doesn't change anything other than when and how you do disclosure when you have a working device. It might be more problematic if you want to manufacture and distribute the device. But as far as developing the device I don't see a problem until the MIB show up. Then it's a pretty straight forward decision depending on the terms.

If it's completely false it doesn't change anything at all. If it's somewhere in between it might change something but you can't know until you know what's true and what's false.

So in any case plan for the worst and hope for the best. It's kind of like disaster planning - plan for what can happen, not what might happen or what "they" might choose to do.

IMO, the worst way to proceed would be to abandon your research. Which, now that I think about it might be their goal. The first thing I thought after watching it was, well it's already been done so why bother. And most of it is "top secret" documents and verbal discussions so you can't verify any of it and you probably don't want to waste 20 years trying to reproduce it.

So my overall answer is proceed down the path you were already following. Maybe with a little more caution, but proceed.

Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.08.05, 00:03:24
I think the answer to that question is Yes.

However,

If there were no humans the passing of events would continue (Things will still happen) but being that "Time" as a relative term exists only in the human consciousness then that term will cease to exist. No term "Time" means no "Time" exists. Time as a Term was invented by Humans and is used only by humans.

If other beings exist they might describe the passing of events as "emit" or something.

The Universe will continue with or without Humans or even intelligent life, no end, it will just continue to exist without end, Time cannot define that or describe it as it has no end and is therefore unmeasurable.

..

If the universe is infinite, can distance be measured?

Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.04, 21:34:11
Speaking of which, how is the healing process coming along Mike?  Hopefully the worst of it is all behind you now.

My name isn't Mike, but since you quoted me I guess you're referring to our problems last year. Everything is fine now. Took a hit financially but built the reserves back up so have been able to work on a couple of projects. The wife's rotator cuff is healed and back to normal, the daughter is fine and the grand kids are a bit nicked up but no more than any normal 3 and 6 year olds. Seems like they have a new bruise, scrape, or scratch every time I see them. Our son is moving to our town this month so we'll have the other 1 year old grandchild who was having problems nearby. She seems to be doing fine but they're still monitoring her. The roof is repaired and the cars are up to snuff. Life could be better, I guess, but I'm not sure I could stand it if it was. There's nothing quite like the belly laugh of a child.

BTW if your post was for someone else please let me know and I'll delete this one.