I see a lot of people doing different things but I'm not sure they understand how FE works.
First, there are a few simple rules.
1)Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
2)Matter cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
3)In effect nothing can be created or destroyed only transformed.
The best example of a FE device is a solar cell. The cell does not create energy it transforms it. Energy from the Sun excites some free electrons in a material causing them to jump over what's called a band gap. The gap acts just like a diode or check valve which only allows the free electrons to move in one direction. The solar cell is a FE device because we do not pay for the energy only the device which transforms the energy, the energy is inherently free.
So when we speak of a FE device we are referring to a device which converts or transforms naturally occurring energy already present.
If we go back to our solar cell we can see the heart of the process is the band gap or discriminator. Discriminate; to make a clear distinction; distinguish. The solar cell band gap only allows high energy free electrons to jump the gap and not return. In effect, it is almost identical to Maxwell's demon. The gap can distinguish the difference between high energy and low energy free electrons only allowing high energy electrons to pass. So the band gap is not just a diode, it's more and this is what makes the process possible.
In effect, what everyone is looking for is Maxwell's Demon and they would do well to research it.
In fact, most FE inventors claimed the output is independent of the input. The input does not create the output the input controls the process which determines the output. In effect, the input energizes Maxwell's Demon which then allows it to control the flow of energy within the system. Similar to powering up a circuit to control some traffic lights. The energy in the circuit is not the energy of the traffic, the circuit only controls the traffic.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.04, 16:59:17
I see a lot of people doing different things but I'm not sure they understand how FE works.
First, there are a few simple rules.
1)Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
2)Matter cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
3)In effect nothing can be created or destroyed only transformed.
The best example of a FE device is a solar cell. The cell does not create energy it transforms it. Energy from the Sun excites some free electrons in a material causing them to jump over what's called a band gap. The gap acts just like a diode or check valve which only allows the free electrons to move in one direction. The solar cell is a FE device because we do not pay for the energy only the device which transforms the energy, the energy is inherently free.
So when we speak of a FE device we are referring to a device which converts or transforms naturally occurring energy already present.
If we go back to our solar cell we can see the heart of the process is the band gap or discriminator. Discriminate; to make a clear distinction; distinguish. The solar cell band gap only allows high energy free electrons to jump the gap and not return. In effect, it is almost identical to Maxwell's demon. The gap can distinguish the difference between high energy and low energy free electrons only allowing high energy electrons to pass. So the band gap is not just a diode, it's more and this is what makes the process possible.
In effect, what everyone is looking for is Maxwell's Demon and they would do well to research it.
In fact, most FE inventors claimed the output is independent of the input. The input does not create the output the input controls the process which determines the output. In effect, the input energizes Maxwell's Demon which then allows it to control the flow of energy within the system. Similar to powering up a circuit to control some traffic lights. The energy in the circuit is not the energy of the traffic, the circuit only controls the traffic.
AC
Most here understand solar energy and that is not the topic. Overunity is. Overunity is where the system output power (or energy) exceeds the system input power (or energy), meaning system efficiency is greater than 100% (unity). When overunity occurs (if it could), then the difference (output minus input) is free energy.
bi
Overall efficiency is always below 100% while there is external energy input exactly like in solar panels. Overunity means only we don't know where is the excess input energy. For example magnetic field imho can be source of energy.
Quote from: broli on 2024.08.04, 22:15:02
The universe has plenty of "free" energy to me.
The real question is how to turn this "dark" into "light" energy O0.
You can turn 'dark energy' into "light" but you can become dark yourself. as variant. Then all that energy will be ours. ;)
Bistander
Quote from: bistander on 2024.08.04, 17:25:03
Most here understand solar energy and that is not the topic. Overunity is. Overunity is where the system output power (or energy) exceeds the system input power (or energy), meaning system efficiency is greater than 100% (unity). When overunity occurs (if it could), then the difference (output minus input) is free energy.
It's debatable, a heat pump has an output greater than the input and an efficiency greater than 100% but is not overunity. In fact, the only difference between overunity and everything else is a lack of understanding. People call something overunity when they do not understand where the energy comes from. In fact, the more primitive the people or culture the more likely they are to believe something is overunity or created from nothing. We could literally walk into some remote jungle and the natives would believe all our technology is magic.
For example, I invent a solar cell which appears to be 150% efficient, is this overunity just because you don't understand where the extra energy comes from?. It would be overunity for you but not for me which is proof overunity is just another name for a lack of understanding.
This is why I prefer to use the terms Free Energy or COP. We understand something being created from nothing is not an option and we recognize the extra energy must come from somewhere.
On a side note, I see broli made an interesting post. I call this the numbers game and is not what we want to do. This is where we see imaginary patterns in numbers and pretend our world is much more complex than it actually is, The Rabbit Hole. The most successful FE inventors did exactly the opposite and reduced everything to the absolute basics and first principals. In effect, to say here is a high energy particle and there a lower energy particle. In order to transform the energy already present we must find a way to separate the particles using less energy than is already present. It's literally that easy and there is no need for all this mind numbing complexity most imagine.
I decided to remove the off topic posts going in exactly the wrong direction and this is not the place for them. FE is supposed to be easy.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.05, 16:22:13
I decided to remove the off topic posts going in exactly the wrong direction and this is not the place for them.
They were not off-topic - only you were unable to make the connection.
I take a great offense at what you have done!
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.05, 16:22:13
I decided to remove the off topic posts going in exactly the wrong direction and this is not the place for them. FE is supposed to be easy.
Things are hard until you understand them. I tried to make a simple point but you are right it got too convoluted so I don't mind the deletion. its funny because i used to scoff about the complicated math too until things clicked not in HOW to use the math but in literally what the math is saying and acting like.
If you dig down all the way to the basics, as you say, in both math you hit "axioms" these are like the fundamental "laws" of math that are ASSUMED to be true. There is only a very small handful of axioms as they need to be as fundamental as possible and consistent as possible as they define the whole of your language aka math. Anyway very little dare to touch these axioms as they are so simple and "obviously" true. However if you keep going down and to the most ABSOLUTE fundamental axiom of nature. It comes down to a decision, and arbitrary decision. You can use all kinds of math language or better yet you can use natural language. But in essence what it comes down to is you cannot create something out of nothing
UNLESS.
And this is the "big" part that has been staring physicists and mathematicians in the face. You CAN create something out of nothing IF you create that "something" with its anti-"something". In math this is called an inversion. Or put simply in number theory. You can create as much as you want as long as you create in pairs of -1 and +1 at the time. Sure both added are 0 but you can use them separately as you please.
So how does this circle back to physics. Well modern day physics has known for ages that you can "create" matter/anti-matter pairs. In fact it happens all the time everywhere all at once in the "quantum" worlds. But this idea generalizes to everything in fact not only physics even math and beyond. To create something out of nothing you must create its inverted self.
So what is this -1/+1 pair power? In math the power of "inverse" allows you to start building an entire language around numbers and functions that map said numbers onto other numbers. And the inverse just means that if you repeat said operation that you come bacl to the original numbers. but this does not have to be a number. This means to produce ANYTHING out of NOTHING you MUST produce it as pair. A simple example is functions. For instance x2 and sqrt(2) or Sine and Cosine and so on. But then we are already in the weeds of maths so i digress. But yeah ANY language starts with a choice, a 50/50 chance choice, the choice to create a pair and arbitrary label which is the "+1" and which is the "anti" "-1" pair. A completely arbitrary and free choice, since people like free will well there it is.
Going back to reality and what we observe from quantum mechanics. It seems we can create "energy" if we can create two equal but opposite pairs and let them come close to each other. In physics this is called a particle anti particle annihilation. This "annihilation" produces energy in fact vast amounts which can be in any form you want but we can just call it "heat". So you create a pair and annihilate it and can continue to do so for essentially forever. There is no limit, this is the baffling thing about "quantum" mechanics, as long as you respect the fundamental rule of creating something with its anti pair you can annihilate it and produce energy.
Now how does one get a particle/anti-particle pair in nature. And translate that in an actually physical device anyone with a 3d printer can make without the need of a particle accelerator? Coming soon to 3d printers near you for all to enjoy.
So "math", "physics", "reality" everything is connected through the language that is being used. The beaty is its always a choice. You can dismiss a language and never get to understand it because its "hard". Or you can try and learn it to understand what is actually being said and talked about and realize that different languages seem to have the same patterns and essentially a language just allows you to interact with and observe things from a different perspective THAT is the true POWER of any language. Sure learning a new language can be hard especially in the beginning and more so with "math". But to me its not about the words or symbols used to tell a story but what we learn from the story and the NEW tools that become available to us in our OWN natural language. For example for most people its enough to only use the tools that math produces. And I am very grateful we already figured out so much already as I sure didn't want to live in the dark ages. However understanding something should imo always happen at its most fundamental level. This is true for any language you learn. This requires good teachers, people that can translate a language they understand to students that know nothing of said language and KEEP trying until ALL their students grasp at least the fundamental ideas. Anything beyond that is just bonus play time to see what else this whole system can throw at us starting from such simple basics. I am clearly no teacher let alone a "good" one. But again it all comes down to something and its anti self that come out of 0 and produce 1.
Perhaps one last example to drive this point home of how important language is. The Fibonacci sequence 0 1 1 2 3..., arguably the most famous sequence in the world. But did you know the sequence of numbers is not describing "numbers" but pairs. I didn't at least until recently, because that is not how I have seen it. But that is how Fibonacci originally formulated the problem too. You start from 0 or nothing and out comes a pair of rabbits and then you create a whole eco system. This might seem like an obvious thing as you need a male and female rabbit. But hey obvious things is what makes fundamental rules.
(https://www.imaginationstationtoledo.org/media/1prcd0ts/bunny_fibonacci.png?width=500&height=386.25)
I honestly don't care about all the philosophical or even spiritual implications this will come with, people can believe what they want but language is everything and every language must have an inverse. If we cannot agree on what the inverse is of something then we have no language and nothing has any meaning, 'yes' becomes 'no' and things become total chaos. EVERYTHING comes in pairs at the most fundamental level and you can create as much 'pairs' as you please as long as you respect the cardinal rule that anything you create has to come with the inverse of itself. Once you have something you can create everything obviously as you now have all kinds of functions to play with or chase "theorems" to prove but that is only for those people like doing that. The rest of us can enjoy our free energy which perhaps comes with a bit more freedom too.
Let me ask a final question to anyone willing to answer it. If you were going to start a new language from ZERO. And you were free to choose any word pair to start defining, which word pair (again itself and its inverse/negation) would you chose to start with?
Quote from: broli on 2024.08.05, 17:29:42
Let me ask a final question to anyone willing to answer it. If you were going to start a new language from ZERO. And you were free to choose any word pair to start defining, which word pair (again itself and its inverse/negation) would you chose to start with?
Space and Time because they are reciprocals of each other in the most fundamental equation of motion.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.05, 16:22:13
Bistander
It's debatable, a heat pump has an output greater than the input and an efficiency greater than 100% but is not overunity. In fact, the only difference between overunity and everything else is a lack of understanding. People call something overunity when they do not understand where the energy comes from. In fact, the more primitive the people or culture the more likely they are to believe something is overunity or created from nothing. We could literally walk into some remote jungle and the natives would believe all our technology is magic.
For example, I invent a solar cell which appears to be 150% efficient, is this overunity just because you don't understand where the extra energy comes from?. It would be overunity for you but not for me which is proof overunity is just another name for a lack of understanding.
This is why I prefer to use the terms Free Energy or COP. We understand something being created from nothing is not an option and we recognize the extra energy must come from somewhere.
...
The accepted definitions for COP and Energy Efficiency concerning heat pumps are not as you say. I used ChatGPT to help assist explanation.
QuoteAsking ChatGPT on 5Aug2024.
bi
Concerning the physics relating to a heat pump, how is c.o.p. (coefficient of performance) different from energy efficiency?
___
ChatGPT
The Coefficient of Performance (COP) and energy efficiency are related concepts in the context of heat pumps, but they describe different aspects:
Coefficient of Performance (COP):
The COP is a measure of the efficiency of a heat pump or refrigeration system. It is defined as the ratio of useful heating or cooling provided to the work (energy) required to produce that heating or cooling.
For heating, the COP is calculated as:
COP heating = Heat Output / Work Input
For cooling, the COP is:
COP cooling = Cooling Output / Work Input
A higher COP indicates a more efficient heat pump.
Energy Efficiency:
Energy efficiency is a broader concept that generally refers to the ratio of useful output (energy or work) to the total energy input in any system, process, or device.
In the context of heat pumps, energy efficiency can be related to the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) for cooling or the Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) for heating, which take into account variations in performance over different operating conditions and seasons.
While COP specifically quantifies the immediate performance of a heat pump under given conditions, energy efficiency encompasses the overall effectiveness of energy usage, often over a period or range of conditions.
In simple terms:
COP focuses on the ratio of heat transfer to work input at a specific moment.
Energy efficiency often considers the overall performance over time and varying conditions.
Both metrics are crucial for understanding and comparing the performance of heat pumps, but they offer insights from slightly different perspectives.
___
bi
Thanks. I understand that the heat pump has COP greater than one (unity), so in that respect it is overunity. But in regards to energy efficiency, it cannot be overunity because the output energy is the sum of all the energy input minus the losses, correct?
___
ChatGPT
Yes, that's correct. Here's a more detailed explanation:
Coefficient of Performance (COP) > 1:
A heat pump's COP can be greater than one because it transfers more heat energy than the electrical energy it consumes. This is possible because the heat pump moves existing heat from one place to another (from a colder area to a warmer area), rather than generating heat through the conversion of electrical energy alone.
For example, if a heat pump has a COP of 3, it means that for every unit of electrical energy consumed, it can transfer three units of heat energy.
Energy Efficiency:
Energy efficiency typically cannot exceed 100% (unity) because it is a measure of how well energy input is converted into useful output, considering all forms of losses (such as heat losses, friction, etc.).
In the context of a heat pump, while the COP can be high (indicating effective heat transfer), the overall energy efficiency considers that the total useful output (heat delivered) includes both the electrical energy input and the energy absorbed from the environment.
The energy efficiency formula would be:
Energy Efficiency = Useful Output Energy / Total Input Energy × 100%
Since the total input energy includes the electrical energy used by the heat pump and the energy absorbed from the environment, the efficiency in terms of total energy input cannot exceed 100%.
So, while a heat pump can have a COP greater than one, indicating it moves more heat energy than the electrical energy it consumes, its energy efficiency as a percentage cannot exceed 100% because it must account for all input energy sources and inherent system losses.
___
bi
Thanks, bi
___
ChatGPT
Memory updated
You're welcome! If you have any more questions about heat pumps or any other topic, feel free to ask.
bi
Fair enough that you deleted the posts, I was hesitant to post what I did because it does only tangentially relate to your OP.
Energy is all around us, measurably without resorting to exotic power sources like zero point energy, cosmic radiation etc etc. I think the focus on something exotic holds us back a lot in free energy research and discredits a lot of it too.
People spruke Tesla this and Tesla that (having never actually read Tesla but thats a story for another time) but ignore the fact that the only concrete example that Tesla wrote about wrt free energy was via ambient heat. Sure we can form hypothesis regarding other things he talked about but in terms of free energy but with Tesla, this is the most concrete we have to go on. Transforming heat into motion or/then electricity. Nature also uses this to generate cyclones and tornadoes.
Why does dark energy exist, even its quantity has been determined, but there is no light energy ?
Does dark energy obey the laws of thermodynamics ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.08.06, 06:29:40
Why does dark energy exist, even its quantity has been determined, but there is no light energy ?
Does dark energy obey the laws of thermodynamics ?
I think you misunderstand why it is called dark energy. Dark energy is postulated to exist, it is a mathematical patch to attempt to explain discrepancy between theoretical effects and measured effects.
So "light energy" in the sense of opposite to dark in the sense of dark matter would be all the energy we can make theories where theory and measurement match ie em, gravity, kinetic etc etc.
As for your question re if dark energy is thermodynamics I would say no it doesn't based on conventional theories about it.
Incredible obfuscation...
Just bounce a weak magnetic field in resonance.
The resonant frequency is dependent on 3 things:
1) The configuration of the head, i.e. material and shape.
2) The space/distance that the bounce is to occur in.
3) The relation of the space/distance to the field strength.
This is why Bedini, SM, and Mueller used cabinet magnets.
This is why Bedini stated Neodyniums were to strong.
Coral castle is based upon the distance as a major factor because the head was crystaline.
Don Smith's units were the distance of the spark gap to the resonant coil field.
If you see a spark gap then the field is being micro pressured/thumped(SM) from it resonant statis base.
If you want a unit with out a spark gap well good luck. Only the EMP shakes the stability into ringing.
Review the Witt device again to see the large field interaction with the commutator sparking inside. Sounds like a magnifying transmitter to me.
Funny thing I never get arguments for pointing out the obvious.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2024.08.06, 23:12:15
Incredible obfuscation...
Just bounce a weak magnetic field in resonance.
The resonant frequency is dependent on 3 things:
1) The configuration of the head, i.e. material and shape.
2) The space/distance that the bounce is to occur in.
3) The relation of the space/distance to the field strength.
This is why Bedini, SM, and Mueller used cabinet magnets.
This is why Bedini stated Neodyniums were to strong.
Coral castle is based upon the distance as a major factor because the head was crystaline.
Don Smith's units were the distance of the spark gap to the resonant coil field.
If you see a spark gap then the field is being micro pressured/thumped(SM) from it resonant statis base.
If you want a unit with out a spark gap well good luck. Only the EMP shakes the stability into ringing.
Review the Witt device again to see the large field interaction with the commutator sparking inside. Sounds like a magnifying transmitter to me.
Funny thing I never get arguments for pointing out the obvious.
It's not about how obvious or simple it is. From all the mentioned names that were lucky enough to observe the effect. Why did noone succeed in bringing it into the world? A grandiose conspiracy that manages to stop everyone? That sure is giving a lot of credits for greed driven feeble minded humans. I mean with our sense of greed this would have been a product a long time ago no? What capitalist would not want to market this.
So what is really going on here?
Stanley Meyer, Tom Ogle, Aaron Salter.
Broli
QuoteIt's not about how obvious or simple it is. From all the mentioned names that were lucky enough to observe the effect. Why did no one succeed in bringing it into the world? A grandiose conspiracy that manages to stop everyone? That sure is giving a lot of credits for greed driven feeble minded humans. I mean with our sense of greed this would have been a product a long time ago no? What capitalist would not want to market this.
So what is really going on here?
Here is a clue, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-did-air-force-keep-sr-71-spy-plane-secret-114781
The story is comical and follows the same pattern as most supposedly impossible technologies today. The misguided critics claimed nothing can fly as fast as the SR-71 it's impossible, they claimed the observers were crazy and seeing things, they claimed there was no real proof it exists. Now the SR-71 is sitting in a museum, lol. Obviously the critics were either stupid or incompetent about the SR-71 and area 51 which have now been disclosed.
Most people intelligent enough to understand FE are also intelligent enough to understand the concept of the consequences of there actions on others. Which is why most FE inventors were wary of disclosing what they know to others not quite as intelligent as themselves. The atomic bomb is a good example, why not tell everyone how to build one?, because that would be stupid. These FE inventors were not stupid.
You should be grateful anyone chooses to share anything with you in this regard.
AC
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.05, 16:44:10
They were not off-topic - only you were unable to make the connection.
I take a great offense at what you have done!
Seems the FE forum moderator All Canadian is all about "no FE for you "stupid""
Playing God and making excuses as we burn our atmosphere destroy our oceans and planet .. maintaining the status quo and comfort for the powers that be ...
Very poor fit for this venue IMO ....
Perhaps better you take your favorite pass time of brawling ( about almost anything) and distractions elsewhere AC
Yeah I know " it's all good at your house " whats the hurry ...
Better to rip the bandaid off ..
Yeesh
EDIT
I see you removed a bit of information from post while I was plunking ... about your CIA watchdog chum ( assumed?) that you use to visit FE claimants with ?,
And your other comments about FE inventors "coming to their senses " about releasing FE open source to the world...
....
Double Yeesh...
Chet
QuoteSeems the FE forum moderator All Canadian is all about "no FE for you "stupid""
Playing God and making excuses as we burn our atmosphere destroy our oceans and planet .. maintaining the status quo and comfort for the powers that be ...
Aren't we all playing God?.
Presuming to know better than nature as we continue to destroy it?.
AC
Actually AC, they are just trying to. Just not thinking things through for the obvious ending.
I don't think we need to have a discussion here about over unity "research " forum
And the goals of its membership..( it's in the forum tittle )
Perhaps persons who disagree with forum theme are in the wrong forum ?
The "haves" playing god with the "have nots"
And making choices for all ?("we know what's good for them")
It is our destiny to find and access the "better way" ..
Attaching our machines to the wheel works of nature ...
Rip the bandaid off and get on with the healing of our planet...
and sorting it all out ...
Absolutely not interested in starting a discussion of fears and what ifs ...( should we close this forum too ??
Since it's not inline with ??
Respectfully
Chet K
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.04, 16:59:17
I see a lot of people doing different things but I'm not sure they understand how FE works.
First, there are a few simple rules.
1)Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
2)Matter cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
3)In effect nothing can be created or destroyed only transformed.
The best example of a FE device is a solar cell. The cell does not create energy it transforms it. Energy from the Sun excites some free electrons in a material causing them to jump over what's called a band gap. The gap acts just like a diode or check valve which only allows the free electrons to move in one direction. The solar cell is a FE device because we do not pay for the energy only the device which transforms the energy, the energy is inherently free.
So when we speak of a FE device we are referring to a device which converts or transforms naturally occurring energy already present.
If we go back to our solar cell we can see the heart of the process is the band gap or discriminator. Discriminate; to make a clear distinction; distinguish. The solar cell band gap only allows high energy free electrons to jump the gap and not return. In effect, it is almost identical to Maxwell's demon. The gap can distinguish the difference between high energy and low energy free electrons only allowing high energy electrons to pass. So the band gap is not just a diode, it's more and this is what makes the process possible.
In effect, what everyone is looking for is Maxwell's Demon and they would do well to research it.
In fact, most FE inventors claimed the output is independent of the input. The input does not create the output the input controls the process which determines the output. In effect, the input energizes Maxwell's Demon which then allows it to control the flow of energy within the system. Similar to powering up a circuit to control some traffic lights. The energy in the circuit is not the energy of the traffic, the circuit only controls the traffic.
AC
Have you got a free energy device? Do you know where you can get a free energy device? No? I didn't think so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmx2bQDO1Vk
Resonantly bounce the field. All devices do this. The Kunel device is a great example.
I have been shut out from making comments on Telegram OverUityDotCom. It is what it is.
Again, resonantly bounce the field. This advice is the starting point. There are so many attempts at building devices with this either not known or almost getting there.
Feed a charge pump with the ringing.
When anyone posts a build I will come after and highlight the operation. In fact any one who read the 'Resonantly bounce the field' will be able to see operation immediately.
The Hendershot weave coil causes a very small angular dissension at the wire proximity. This 'weakness' can be exploited sending ringing outward into the rest of the toroid field. The Kunel device uses the air gap to vary the field strength downward so it takes less energy to exploit the field weakness. The Witt device control is the jogging that appears and is transferred as a resonant propulsion kick. The Joule thief is a resonant Armstrong oscillator using very little current to oscillate.
Chet
QuotePerhaps persons who disagree with forum theme are in the wrong forum ?
I think the majority agree that if there is an energy gain then the energy must come from somewhere. The problem seems to come from the terminology and how it's interpreted. Some claim free energy relates to a perpetual motion machine not energy which is inherently free. Some claim a device is OU but also claim the energy must come from somewhere. Some claim there is no such thing as perpetual motion even though most physicists more so astrophysicists consider it a known fact.
QuoteThe "haves" playing god with the "have nots"
I was under the impression this was the way of the world more so in places like America. The rich and powerful are always playing god with those less fortunate than themselves aren't they?. How do you think so many people got so stinking rich and powerful?, it wasn't by being charitable. I mean, logically if they were actually charitable they would have given much of there wealth to those less fortunate but obviously they didn't hence the reason they are so wealthy.
Jimboot
QuoteHave you got a free energy device? Do you know where you can get a free energy device? No? I didn't think so
Certainly, Nelson Rocha has working tech because I replicated it and I believe Centraflow does as well. I wanted to get involved in Mikes tech and help out but it's really complicated and time consuming as Mike would probably agree. The timing, energy levels and geometry are beyond most persons capability but Mike makes it look easy. I have talked with Mike and he is a brilliant man who works harder than anyone I know to make progress.
AC
Back to the topic at hand...
QuoteFirst, there are a few simple rules.
1)Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
2)Matter cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
3)In effect nothing can be created or destroyed only transformed.
The best example of a FE device is a solar cell. The cell does not create energy it transforms it. Energy from the Sun excites some free electrons in a material causing them to jump over what's called a band gap. The gap acts just like a diode or check valve which only allows the free electrons to move in one direction. The solar cell is a FE device because we do not pay for the energy only the device which transforms the energy, the energy is inherently free.
So when we speak of a FE device we are referring to a device which converts or transforms naturally occurring energy already present.
Consider the excited free electron jumping the band gap in a solar cell. The excited free electron may be jiggling back and forth but produces a linear motion or migration across the gap from (+) to (-). It reminds me of the Inertial Transmission having an rotating eccentric mass attached to a one way bearing. I replicated the Constantinesco device and it's a brilliant concept. http://rexresearch.com/constran/1constran.htm
The energy of the input or oscillating mass is always perfectly conserved until such time as the inertia of the mass can produce enough force to overcome the load force.
It never wastes energy trying to fight the load like most concepts, it always conserves the energy.
You see, you just learned something new of real value which can be applied in countless ways.
What I just explained relates to Nikola Tesla's brilliant claim that all electrical systems can in fact be treated as mechanical systems. They are mechanical systems which simply act on a much smaller level we cannot see. The only real goal is to apply a force (field) to a mass (particle) producing motion (a current) in the most efficient way. It's easy and we could literally dispense with all the fancy equations and terminology so many seem obsessed with. This is called working with first principals, to discard all which is not required and only focus on what is. To discard all the complexity and only focus on what we want.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.13, 21:24:15
JimbootCertainly, Nelson Rocha has working tech because I replicated it and I believe Centraflow does as well. I wanted to get involved in Mikes tech and help out but it's really complicated and time consuming as Mike would probably agree. The timing, energy levels and geometry are beyond most persons capability but Mike makes it look easy. I have talked with Mike and he is a brilliant man who works harder than anyone I know to make progress.
AC
SO you claim you have built a free energy but refuse to share any evidence of such a device. What sort of person starts a thread like this on OUR? You are like so many others before you that make extraordinary claims but have no evidence.. wait maybe I'm wrong and you're powering a stirling engine with all this hot air? I have more respect to the incorrect measurers and the delusional, at least they are more genuine. What a time waster.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.14, 15:19:51
Back to the topic at hand...
[....]
Consider the excited free electron jumping the band gap in a solar cell. The excited free electron may be jiggling back and forth but produces a linear motion or migration across the gap from (+) to (-). It reminds me of the Inertial Transmission having an rotating eccentric mass attached to a one way bearing. I replicated the Constantinesco device and it's a brilliant concept. http://rexresearch.com/constran/1constran.htm
The energy of the input or oscillating mass is always perfectly conserved until such time as the inertia of the mass can produce enough force to overcome the load force. It never wastes energy trying to fight the load like most concepts, it always conserves the energy.
You see, you just learned something new of real value which can be applied in countless ways.
What I just explained relates to Nikola Tesla's brilliant claim that all electrical systems can in fact be treated as mechanical systems. They are mechanical systems which simply act on a much smaller level we cannot see. The only real goal is to apply a force (field) to a mass (particle) producing motion (a current) in the most efficient way. It's easy and we could literally dispense with all the fancy equations and terminology so many seem obsessed with. This is called working with first principals, to discard all which is not required and only focus on what is. To discard all the complexity and only focus on what we want.
AC
QuoteBack to the topic at hand...
The topic was easy Free Energy on an OverUnityResarch board. How is a transmission or torque converter relevant?
QuoteThe only real goal is to apply a force (field) to a mass (particle) producing motion (a current) in the most efficient way.
No. The goal is Free Energy via Overunity. Efficiency, although desirable, is not a path to OU. Unity is the limit for loss reduction.
bi
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.04, 16:59:17
I see a lot of people doing different things but I'm not sure they understand how FE works.
First, there are a few simple rules.
1)Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.
Right out of the gate you got bullet point 1 wrong. The Law of Conservation states that energy can only be transferred and transformed, not just transformed as you stated. The issue with your comment is that you are modifying the facts to better support your argument, but if stated correctly it would work against your argument (as you did so eloquently yourself at the end of your post).
It appears your stuck on the transform part, and think that it's the only possible underlining principle an FE device incorporates. Then, you go on to spread internet falsehoods regarding refrigeration COP, please stop.
As someone who has been in the industry for decades
it is a pet peeve of mine when internet theorist armed with a Wikipedia education make false claims regarding the COP of systems they know nothing about. A refrigeration system
DOES NOT transform energy as a product, it only can
TRANSFER energy as noted by the law (Point A to Point B energy transfer). In a refrigeration system, COP is a
variable (unknown to many) that represents energy transfer, and that is completely different from the efficiency of a diesel driven generator. Those systems do not transfer energy, they convert energy through a specific transformation process.
In a refrigeration system, the rated efficiency (aka nameplate data) IS ONLY at a specific set of conditions. The BTU output
of ALL refrigeration systems is variable even with a constant volume compressor. You would only know this through real world experience.
As an example. Residential AC systems (aka high temperature refrigeration) are rated at 95 Deg.F Outdoor Air conditions. So when we are coupled with an engineered indoor evaporator system and about a 78 Deg.F air temperature traveling across the face of the evaporator moving at a rate of an estimated 400 CFM per ton of cooling and a speed of 400 - 650 fpm velocity at 95 Deg.F outdoor air I will have rated nameplate BTU transfer and achieve rated COP.
BUT when outdoor air temperatures rise above rated outdoor (engineered) design of 95 Deg.F, guess what, the refrigeration effect is reduced and you can no longer achieve nameplate transfer even if indoor conditions are stable within design specifications
(but that is not a possibility).So in other words your system gets smaller and can't deliver nameplate BTU transfer (per hour). Here nameplate COP plummets.
Just ask anyone in Arizona if a 5-ton AC system sitting in 115 Degree heat actually actually delivers 60k btu's. Anyone who thinks it does has no knowledge of the physics associated with the transfer of energy utilizing a refrigerant. It
GETS BETTER, what do you think happens when your AC system, that is rated for nameplate btu/hr @95 DegF, is operating well below that value, like 78 DegF. (outside air) Well guess what, compressor amps drop dramatically and COP goes through the roof on the grounds that now, per pound of refrigerant, I can capture and transport more heat energy and that leads to greater nameplate capacity at greatly reduced energy consumption. Not uncommon at all for a 5-ton system (60k btu/hr) to deliver over 75k btu/hr (been there done that with industrial systems). This is because refrigeration is based on energy transfer, at specific conditions, and that is a variable driven by the temperature/pressure relationship.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.04, 16:59:17
So when we speak of a FE device we are referring to a device which converts or transforms naturally occurring energy already present.
What do you mean by
when WE speak? Who in the heck is WE? A system that is based on energy
transformation is maxed at 100% output (excluding losses). A system based on these principles can never achieve overunity. This should be common knowledge (and sense) and WE may want to study the Law of Conservation.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.04, 16:59:17
In effect, what everyone is looking for is Maxwell's Demon and they would do well to research it.
Certainly not me. If your looking for a more efficient energy TRANSFORMATION technique all hope is lost because the Law of Conservation, as you quoted incorrectly at the start of your post, will not allow you to transform more energy than what you are starting with. But, a more efficient energy TRANSFER technique is the only clear and real possibility.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.04, 16:59:17
In fact, most FE inventors claimed the output is independent of the input. The input does not create the output the input controls the process which determines the output.
I agree with you here and much like a refrigeration system the compressor, plays a part in the amount of energy that is transferred from point A to point B. Output being independent is stated by FE inventors because they know the difference between energy transfer and transformation. Here is a little
mind fu@k for you. Even in the OFF cycle (ie compressor not running) a refrigeration system is transferring energy with no power being utilized. How is this possible? Is it now overunity? Has nothing to do with transformation of energy BUT everything to do with understanding energy transfer.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.04, 16:59:17
In effect, the input energizes Maxwell's Demon which then allows it to control the flow of energy within the system. Similar to powering up a circuit to control some traffic lights. The energy in the circuit is not the energy of the traffic, the circuit only controls the traffic.
You should have stopped at the prior statement, now your making claims of flow (which is a transfer) of energy where at the beginning of your post you chose to educate people that the keyword in the Law of Conservation was
transformed. Engineering distinguishes between transfer and transformation.
So if you correct your statement to fall inline with your logic it would say "
In effect, the input energizes Maxwell's Demon which then allows it to control the transformation of energy within the system". Do you now see how that mindset is flawed? Your Demon will never transform more output than input (requires understanding of conservation). The solution has to be in the energy transfer.
I am not trying to be a jerk here, your understanding of conservation, along with energy transfer through the refrigerant process and its associated COP calculation are all armchair internet based. I have a hard time sitting idle when falsehoods are distributed as if it were grounded theory based on decades of real world engineering experience. I am sure I can learn from you, but this isn't neither the forum or the subject matter. I also agree with the others in that you do not have an FE device.
-JA
Bistander
QuoteThe topic was easy Free Energy on an OverUnityResarch board. How is a transmission or torque converter relevant?
It is relevant because the inertial concept in question does not apply the input directly to the output. The input can act on the inertial mass and the inertial mass can act on the output but the input cannot act directly on the output. Similar to how Centraflow did not build a simple transformer where the input acts directly on the output. The input acts on an intermediary element which can then act on the output but the input should never act directly on the output because we already know the result, it will not work.
QuoteNo. The goal is Free Energy via Overunity. Efficiency, although desirable, is not a path to OU. Unity is the limit for loss reduction.
Does it matter?, if the output is twice the input and a device can do useful work for next to nothing does it matter what we call it?.
On efficiency, look at the history of almost every FE inventor and you will find almost nobody was looking for OU or FE. They were trying to improve the efficiency of devices and stumbled onto an anomaly. As one FE inventor put it, a unexplained gain of 10% in a system which is only 50% efficient is basically useless. So we start by trying to build a system as efficient as possible then take the next step where the output exceeds the input. We should learn how to walk before we try running.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.15, 18:56:52
BistanderIt is relevant because the inertial concept in question does not apply the input directly to the output. The input can act on the inertial mass and the inertial mass can act on the output but the input cannot act directly on the output. Similar to how Centraflow did not build a simple transformer where the input acts directly on the output. The input acts on an intermediary element which can then act on the output but the input should never act directly on the output because we already know the result, it will not work.
Does it matter?, if the output is twice the input and a device can do useful work for next to nothing does it matter what we call it?.
On efficiency, look at the history of almost every FE inventor and you will find almost nobody was looking for OU or FE. They were trying to improve the efficiency of devices and stumbled onto an anomaly. As one FE inventor put it, a unexplained gain of 10% in a system which is only 50% efficient is basically useless. So we start by trying to build a system as efficient as possible then take the next step where the output exceeds the input. We should learn how to walk before we try running.
AC
I checked with ChatGPT:
QuoteI said:
Has anyone ever invented free energy or a free energy device or method?
ChatGPT said:
No one has successfully invented or demonstrated a working "free energy" device or method. The concept of "free energy" generally refers to the idea of generating energy without any input, which would violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, particularly the first and second laws. These laws dictate that energy cannot be created or destroyed (only converted from one form to another) and that energy systems naturally progress toward a state of entropy, meaning no system can be perfectly efficient.
Over the years, many individuals have claimed to have developed free energy devices, such as perpetual motion machines, but none of these have been validated by the scientific community. These devices often turn out to be hoaxes, misunderstandings, or result from flawed experiments. Scientific consensus maintains that free energy, as often described, is not possible according to our current understanding of physics.
I said:
Thanks, bi
ChatGPT said:
You're welcome! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
I believe I have said the same thing to you before in my own words.
bi
We could ask ChatGPT -is the output of a system always equal to the input in open systems?.
Answer: In open systems, the output is not always equal to the input. Here's why:
-Energy and Matter Exchange: Open systems exchange energy and matter with their environment. This means that the system can gain or lose energy and matter, which can lead to differences between input and output. For example, in a chemical reaction, the input may be certain reactants, but the output will be the products along with any energy released or absorbed.
-System Dynamics: The behavior of open systems is often governed by complex dynamics. In many cases, open systems undergo transformations or processes that change the nature of the input. For example, in biological systems, nutrients (input) are converted into various forms of energy and waste products (output).
-Interactions and Feedback: Open systems can be influenced by feedback mechanisms where the output can affect the input. In such cases, the relationship between input and output can be dynamic and variable.
So in a closed system we only look at the energy within the system ie. (the total energy of an isolated system remains constant). In an open system we must look at the energy withing the system and also the external energy flowing into and out of the system. You see, the output can exceed the input while energy is being conserved if we look at the total energy of an open system.
For example, it would be easy to trick most people into believing I had an OU system. I would show them a big circuit with many coils of wire, switches and signal diodes. The circuit is a joule thief running at 99% efficiency and in sunlight the PN junctions of all the signal diodes acts just like the PN junction of a solar cell. As they move there hand closer the voltage changes and some might think it's the electric field and not shadowing of the diodes. Thus many things could appear as OU depending on our knowledge and understanding. We can also see why efficiency is so important and if the circuit was less efficient we might never notice the extra energy coming from all the diodes. The same seems to be true of most FE devices.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.16, 15:15:45
We could ask ChatGPT -is the output of a system always equal to the input in open systems?.
Answer: In open systems, the output is not always equal to the input. Here's why:
-Energy and Matter Exchange: Open systems exchange energy and matter with their environment. This means that the system can gain or lose energy and matter, which can lead to differences between input and output. For example, in a chemical reaction, the input may be certain reactants, but the output will be the products along with any energy released or absorbed.
-System Dynamics: The behavior of open systems is often governed by complex dynamics. In many cases, open systems undergo transformations or processes that change the nature of the input. For example, in biological systems, nutrients (input) are converted into various forms of energy and waste products (output).
-Interactions and Feedback: Open systems can be influenced by feedback mechanisms where the output can affect the input. In such cases, the relationship between input and output can be dynamic and variable.
So in a closed system we only look at the energy within the system ie. (the total energy of an isolated system remains constant). In an open system we must look at the energy withing the system and also the external energy flowing into and out of the system. You see, the output can exceed the input while energy is being conserved if we look at the total energy of an open system.
For example, it would be easy to trick most people into believing I had an OU system. I would show them a big circuit with many coils of wire, switches and signal diodes. The circuit is a joule thief running at 99% efficiency and in sunlight the PN junctions of all the signal diodes acts just like the PN junction of a solar cell. As they move there hand closer the voltage changes and some might think it's the electric field and not shadowing of the diodes. Thus many things could appear as OU depending on our knowledge and understanding. We can also see why efficiency is so important and if the circuit was less efficient we might never notice the extra energy coming from all the diodes. The same seems to be true of most FE devices.
AC
So ChatGPT gives the following information:
Quote
I said:
In physics, explain closed
systems vs open systems.
ChatGPT said:
In physics, the concepts of closed and open systems are used to describe how matter and energy interact with their surroundings.
Closed System:
A closed system is one where no matter is allowed to enter or leave the system, but energy can be exchanged with the surroundings.
Examples: A sealed container of gas or a thermos bottle. In these cases, the amount of gas or liquid within the container remains constant, but heat can flow in or out.
Open System:
An open system, on the other hand, can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings.
Examples: A boiling pot of water. Steam (matter) escapes into the air, and heat (energy) is transferred from the stove to the pot.
The distinction helps in analyzing physical processes by understanding how interactions with the environment affect the system.
From this and your post, I conclude that you consider the internal combustion engine a Free Energy device because considering it an open system, energy output far exceeds energy input; nevermind the exchange of matter with the environment. Your logic defies reason.
bi
Bistander
QuoteFrom this and your post, I conclude that you consider the internal combustion engine a Free Energy device because considering it an open system, energy output far exceeds energy input; nevermind the exchange of matter with the environment. Your logic defies reason.
I can understand why a more universal perspective can seem confusing to many. I don't adhere to populism or the popular notion of things and only look at facts and first principals.
For example, can an internal combustion engine be considered a Free Energy device?. Yes it can if the energy source at work is inherently free or without cost. If an engine could split water and combust the hydrogen producing a demonstrable power gain and the water was free then by definition it is a free energy device.
With a few questions to the AI I found the quite logical reason for our disagreement. The AI does not consider a closed system the same as an isolated system where I do. Closed means closed and nothing gets in or out. As well, I do not recognize the notion of an isolated system because an "isolated system" is only a theoretical construct.
QuoteIsolated System: An isolated system, where neither energy nor matter can be exchanged, is a theoretical construct that serves as an ideal model for studying energy conservation in a completely self-contained environment.
Ergo, an isolated system it is not real, it is made up and I do not recognize made up things when using first principals. I do not recognize an isolated system or lines of force or positive charges flowing in wires or imaginary dimensions or any other imaginary things people choose to make up. These false beliefs in imaginary things is probably why so many people continue to fail to produce the desired results.
For example, in an electric free energy device only one concept is relevant. That work is done on the free electrons moving them more than expected thus producing more power which is inherently free of cost. This is a first principal and any other beliefs anyone may have about electrical systems are for the most part irrelevant.
QuoteFirst-Principles Thinking:
Problem-Solving Approach: First-principles thinking involves breaking down complex problems into their most basic elements (the first principles) and building solutions from there. This approach encourages innovation and creative thinking because it avoids relying on established assumptions or analogies.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.16, 19:49:26
Bistander
I can understand why a more universal perspective can seem confusing to many. I don't adhere to populism or the popular notion of things and only look at facts and first principals.
For example, can an internal combustion engine be considered a Free Energy device?. Yes it can if the energy source at work is inherently free or without cost. If an engine could split water and combust the hydrogen producing a demonstrable power gain and the water was free then by definition it is a free energy device.
With a few questions to the AI I found the quite logical reason for our disagreement. The AI does not consider a closed system the same as an isolated system where I do. Closed means closed and nothing gets in or out. As well, I do not recognize the notion of an isolated system because an "isolated system" is only a theoretical construct.
Ergo, an isolated system it is not real, it is made up and I do not recognize made up things when using first principals. I do not recognize an isolated system or lines of force or positive charges flowing in wires or imaginary dimensions or any other imaginary things people choose to make up. These false beliefs in imaginary things is probably why so many people continue to fail to produce the desired results.
For example, in an electric free energy device only one concept is relevant. That work is done on the free electrons moving them more than expected thus producing more power which is inherently free of cost. This is a first principal and any other beliefs anyone may have about electrical systems are for the most part irrelevant.
AC
So, for you, Free Energy is easy because you make up your own definitions and rules/laws of physics/nature and consider everybody stupid and irrelevant. You've even made the case that a modern day 5th grader is smarter than, who was it, Copernicus, or Newton?
You are in an elite club; Free Energy Inventors. Have fun.
bi
Bistander
QuoteSo, for you, Free Energy is easy because you make up your own definitions and rules/laws of physics/nature and consider everybody stupid and irrelevant.
I follow the Feynman Technique, https://smowl.net/en/blog/feynman-technique/
QuoteThe Feynman technique is a methodology for in-depth understanding of any subject that focuses on studying a concept and explaining it to someone else in a very simple way in order to identify gaps and work on them, before repeating the process until it is simplified as much as possible.
In other words, the process consists of choosing a subject, studying it and being able to explain it to a child so that they understand it, and improving the explanations until they have fully mastered what they have learned.
Similar to a quote attributed to Einstein, "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself". Einstein and Feynman used this technique.
My refined process works very well for me.
1)Pick a device or patent and grab a pen and paper.
2)Sketch or break the device down into the many individual components or sections.
3)Study each section and all the possible interactions. Research, research, research.
4)Imagine having to explain how it could work to a six year old. No big words, no complex, unknown or magical interactions. Keep it absolutely simple.
We can only work with what is known at the time and at hand.
5)If our simplified explanation makes no sense throw the paper in the garbage. Start over from scratch with another or new perspective. A reset if you will to avoid unproductive repetition.
6)Repeat the process until something changes then test the idea.
This process does one thing. It reprograms our mind to think clearly and focus on the problem at hand.
This also relates directly to the flow state.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/clearer-thinking-today/202411/how-to-achieve-the-flow-state
QuoteThe flow state is a psychological state, first described by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in the 1970s, during which you are fully engaged in an activity, you lose track of time, and you feel a sense of effortless control. He deemed it an "optimal experience".
In effect, ignoring what everyone else said or did and immersing ourselves in the problem at hand. I mean, if they cannot solve the problem they cannot help us. We need to help ourselves first.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.06.19, 18:14:05
...
Similar to a quote attributed to Einstein, "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself". Einstein and Feynman used this technique.
...
Coming from Einstein, that makes sense.
1) he was competent in his field
2) he was aware of the limits of his assertion (i.e. that what a 6-year-old would understand would be an insufficient image to build anything).
Coming from almost all the people who want to teach us about the so-called 'free energy' that we're still waiting for, and give endless empty speeches on the subject, neither point 1 nor point 2 are checked.
With regards to my last post, the focus is on understanding, not so much memorization or people.
For example, many claim a device or machine cannot extract energy from the environment due to a concept called entropy. That energy always moves from high to low and diffuses outward.
This is obviously not true, a tree begins as a small seed then starts extracting energy and matter from it's environment to grow larger for decades. Not only does a tree concentrate energy but it is also a self-organizing, self-repairing, self-replicating system. In principal this process found everywhere in nature could be applied to a FE machine.
I think my claim above is a good example of the Feynman Technique. People can memorize stuff, quote other people and textbooks until they are blue in the face but that does not change the facts. More so, even a six year old can understand the example above. A tree does what many claim cannot be done.
Logically, this leads to another very relevant question. How many people do you know who have the knowledge and understanding to build a self-organizing, self-replicating, energy extracting system like a tree seed?. The answer is zero and the technology is light years beyond our present level of understanding. Yet there is a very good chance we have an example of such an energy extraction system growing in our back yard.
AC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxV649PKcS8
This is one of Houdini's best videos. He claims energy extraction from an impulse series circuit by the introduction of a coil. He demonstrates that the negative energy present is not
subject to Kirchhoff's laws. Hmm
Well, the energy is cold electricity and by definition does not create a resistance in the wire; therefore, logically, Kchoff cannot apply.
Just saying, comments welcome.
Aking21
QuoteThis is one of Houdini's best videos. He claims energy extraction from an impulse series circuit by the introduction of a coil. He demonstrates that the negative energy present is not
subject to Kirchhoff's laws. Hmm
Well, the energy is cold electricity and by definition does not create a resistance in the wire; therefore, logically, Kchoff cannot apply.
Just saying, comments welcome.
I think this is pretty easy to explain. Kirchhoff's laws are a variation of hydraulic and gas laws which relate to closed systems. All it claims is that if the system is defined as closed then what goes into a circuit must come out. Even a 6 year old could have invented this law, what goes in is what comes out, it's that simple.
What some call "cold electricity" is low current electricity often at high voltage or frequency. This term probably came from the fact high current produces lots of heat like welding or a resistance heater ergo "hot electricity". The caveat is that high voltage/high frequency produces ionization, radiation and skin effects. These effects can change the voltage and current values within a circuit.
Simply put, if any energy enters or leaves the circuit Kirchhoff's laws would appear to be violated. The problems seems to come about when less experienced people do not include external effects in their assumptions or modelling. If we changed the model, drew a bigger box around the circuit including external effects/energy then Kirchhoff's laws work. Again, all Kirchhoff's laws imply is what goes in must come out in some form. It's not special and like most laws it's basically a statement of the obvious.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.06.20, 14:46:46
...
many claim a device or machine cannot extract energy from the environment due to a concept called entropy.
...
"Many"? Who are you referring to? Ignorant people? No scientist says that or you haven't understood the context of the statement.
If I extract coal and burn it in a power station, I create electricity from the environment.
And I'm increasing entropy.
The same applies to living things. In the end the energy recovered comes from the sun and its effects on the earth.
F6FLT
QuoteIf I extract coal and burn it in a power station, I create electricity from the environment.
And I'm increasing entropy.
The same applies to living things. In the end the energy recovered comes from the sun and its effects on the earth.
That was the response I was looking for.
Solar radiation from the Sun allowed plants to concentrate energy and material. When the plants and animals died and were buried they became a form of hydrocarbon we call coal. The plants/coal are energy carriers and when we burn the coal we liberate the solar energy stored within it from thousands/millions of years ago.
This only increases entropy locally for a limited time because other plants and material will absorb the heat, CO2 and H2O liberated by burning the coal. We need to remember the Earth is a semi-closed system and the conservation of energy and mass apply. Thus entropy/radiation is generally balanced by syntropy/concentration here on Earth.
It's strange, I agree entropy applies and energy tends to radiate outward. However where do you think all that energy goes?... nowhere?. The COE demands that any energy radiated must at some point in time be absorbed by something else. Yet many people seem infatuated with entropy and ignore syntropy.
Question to ChatGPT, what is syntropy?.
Answer,
QuoteSyntropy is a concept that appears in various contexts—especially in systems theory, biology, and speculative physics. However, it does not have a single, widely accepted scientific definition. Here's a breakdown of how the term is used:
In Systems Theory / Theoretical Biology
Syntropy is proposed as the opposite of entropy. Where entropy leads to disorder, decay, and increasing randomness (as in the Second Law of Thermodynamics), syntropy refers to: Increasing order, Coherence, Organization, Movement toward complexity and life.
Key idea: Entropy drives systems to decay, while syntropy drives systems toward self-organization.
Ironically, Syntropy is not formally recognized in mainstream physics. The confusion seems to revolve around the fact that syntropy is not a force more so a natural process. Weird isn't it?, that physics would basically ignore "living things" and the sole reason for their own existence?. So in their strange little world we can fire a bullet (entropy) but it never lands anywhere (syntropy), lol.
AC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxV649PKcS8
I am more interested in the claims made about a node appearing across a wire, and that this is a gateway into extracting energy from outside the circuit.
Aking21
Quotehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxV649PKcS8
I am more interested in the claims made about a node appearing across a wire, and that this is a gateway into extracting energy from outside the circuit.
I watched many similar video's which seem like a comedy of errors and misplaced terms now. Here I would agree with F6FLT the resident critic.
So, the circuit is recognized as a common joule thief or blocking oscillator timed to produce a short HF pulse train when the magnet aligns with the coil. The "inductive discharge" when the power to the coil is cut is what houdini calls "negative energy". In fact the electric polarity has reversed but the current flow is still in the forward direction. It's not "negative energy" the electric polarity of the coil has reversed and is well known to most working with coils or inductance.
The supposed "node" is also a known effect. I replicated the Tesla hair pin circuit which is in fact a modified Lecher line circuit. Tesla described how his HV/HF circuit produced nodes ie wavelengths as short as one cm long. I imagine houdini read Tesla's lectures on the effect and included it in his own theories. However it begs the question whether a 12v modified joule thief circuit could produce this kind of frequency. You see a 1 cm wavelength equates to a frequency of 30 GHz. This kind of frequency is anything but trivial.
In the video Houdini's theory then supposes that said nodes act across the load powering it then proceed to act across the mm gap of the battery plates. A 1 mm wavelength equates to a frequency of 300 GHz. So how did the frequency magically increase from 30 to 300 GHz in the short piece of wire between the load and the battery?.
Here's the thing, I have no problem showing a 12v battery with a measured voltage of 50v much more than houdini is showing. How did I do it?, use very short pulses of 100v which are retained on the surface of the battery plates long enough to show an average voltage of 50v on your DMM. It's not magic, it's a known effect called a "surface charge" to most people experimenting with pulsed charging systems.
In fact, on the extreme end of the spectrum I tried charging a 12v battery with 50 KV impulses. I could light a number of LED's simply by touching the plastic case of the battery as if by magic. Why do something so stupid?, because experimenters must experiment.
Let's ask ChatGPT
Question, can pulse charging a battery produce residual charge showing an incorrect voltage?.
Answer,
QuoteYes, pulse charging can sometimes produce a residual or surface charge that may show an incorrect or misleading voltage reading—especially shortly after charging stops.
Here's why: When a battery is pulse charged, short bursts of high current are applied intermittently rather than a steady charge. This can cause the surface of the electrodes in the battery to become temporarily polarized, leading to a surface charge.
Surface charge is a thin layer of higher-than-actual voltage on the plates, This voltage doesn't represent the true state of charge of the battery, It can cause a voltmeter to read higher than the actual voltage—sometimes misleading the user into thinking the battery is more charged than it really is.
I get it, back in 2006 my FE chat group used to be all in on houdini. It's kind of like a phase before we move forward and realize how naive we were. Lots of stuff seemed cool back then but not so much today. We live and we learn.
Best Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.06.22, 00:41:30
Aking21
I watched many similar video's which seem like a comedy of errors and misplaced terms now. Here I would agree with F6FLT the resident critic.
So, the circuit is recognized as a common joule thief or blocking oscillator timed to produce a short HF pulse train when the magnet aligns with the coil. The "inductive discharge" when the power to the coil is cut is what houdini calls "negative energy". In fact the electric polarity has reversed but the current flow is still in the forward direction. It's not "negative energy" the electric polarity of the coil has reversed and is well known to most working with coils or inductance.
The supposed "node" is also a known effect. I replicated the Tesla hair pin circuit which is in fact a modified Lecher line circuit. Tesla described how his HV/HF circuit produced nodes ie wavelengths as short as one cm long. I imagine houdini read Tesla's lectures on the effect and included it in his own theories. However it begs the question whether a 12v modified joule thief circuit could produce this kind of frequency. You see a 1 cm wavelength equates to a frequency of 30 GHz. This kind of frequency is anything but trivial.
In the video Houdini's theory then supposes that said nodes act across the load powering it then proceed to act across the mm gap of the battery plates. A 1 mm wavelength equates to a frequency of 300 GHz. So how did the frequency magically increase from 30 to 300 GHz in the short piece of wire between the load and the battery?.
Here's the thing, I have no problem showing a 12v battery with a measured voltage of 50v much more than houdini is showing. How did I do it?, use very short pulses of 100v which are retained on the surface of the battery plates long enough to show an average voltage of 50v on your DMM. It's not magic, it's a known effect called a "surface charge" to most people experimenting with pulsed charging systems.
In fact, on the extreme end of the spectrum I tried charging a 12v battery with 50 KV impulses. I could light a number of LED's simply by touching the plastic case of the battery as if by magic. Why do something so stupid?, because experimenters must experiment.
Let's ask ChatGPT
Question, can pulse charging a battery produce residual charge showing an incorrect voltage?.
Answer,
I get it, back in 2006 my FE chat group used to be all in on houdini. It's kind of like a phase before we move forward and realize how naive we were. Lots of stuff seemed cool back then but not so much today. We live and we learn.
Best Regards
AC
Ha! This guy's going all in on Houdini who he calls "Bendini". Gonna be fun to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eSGd93ND4
Aking21
QuoteHa! This guy's going all in on Houdini who he calls "Bendini". Gonna be fun to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eSGd93ND4
Rookies, lol, I like the enthusiasm.
It looks like he is doing a lot of things right most people overlook. Note he describes the setup as a HV/HF pulse motor which is fundamentally true. People playing around with anything under 5 KV sharp discharge spikes are basically wasting their time. He also winds the coils in separately switched twisted bundles of conductors which is important. Again, if you don't do this right and follow instructions you get nothing. Under the right conditions I can see his setup could produce positive results.
I agree the video sounds kind of comical but I look at the observable facts and this guy is probably closer than 99% of the amateurs I have seen. To be honest I like him, he is well spoken, to the point and ambitious.
Here's a few tips for the guys still doing real experiments. So on this kind of setup I used hall effect sensors on the coils to determine the magnitude of the external magnetic field present in each coil. This data was correlated with the voltage and current input using a microcomputer. This shows us the efficiency or how effective our input is working while isolating the sensors from the HV circuit running at 5 KV+. If your doing something right we see the magnetic field in the core increase which then translates to the supposed "anomaly" of an increase in current output vs the input. The anomaly shows up as a magnetic field change in the core first which is larger than expected.
You see the reason 99% of people fail is they don't understand science or logic. They are weekend warriors or textbook hero's. They don't understand how to apply sensors to gather all the relevant data to determine what is normal, what is abnormal and exactly what is happening in any given time period. Personally I thought this was pretty basic. We sensor the crap out of everything, monitor everything with a computer to crunch all the data which then tells us when something unusual happens. Yet we see a lot of people still playing around with primitive DMM's or DSO's which is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Here is where real math and statistics come into play. So if you want to play around with primitive instruments like a DMM or DSO which can only capture a limited time frame of one variable you have to interpret based on prior art your hooped. Your finished before you have even started.
I like to use this example, So how many ways can we order all the 52 cards in a pack?
http://www.murderousmaths.co.uk/cardperms.htm
80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636, 856,403,766,975,289,505,440, 883,277,824,000,000,000,000"Any time you pick up a well-shuffled deck, you are almost certainly holding an arrangement of cards that has never before existed and might not exist again."
Now suppose we have a circuit with 52 variables which could change in any number of ways and the same rules apply. Yet many claim this should have been figured out by now?... no it's the math stupid. We could randomly experiment with no direction for one million years and never stumble onto the correct sequence of variables required to produce the desired result. The supposed science and prior art have literally nothing to do with it, it's a numbers game.
This is why logic and reason are so important. The odds against us are impossible unless we do the research and find ways to cut down the odds against us.
AC
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.06.28, 20:27:00
Ha! This guy's going all in on Houdini who he calls "Bendini". Gonna be fun to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eSGd93ND4
Here is his explanation of why he thinks a Bedini pulse motor could work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwSQOFkNN9E
Basically he is saying he thinks that very quick HV flyback pulses (sharp gradient events) can draw in energy from the vacuum.
If the pulse switching on the coil(s) uses fast switches, he thinks you have a better chance of capturing that energy which is supposedly drawn in from the vacuum.
He says he is going to use SiC Mosfets and diodes to get faster and cleaner switching.
Void
QuoteHere is his explanation of why he thinks a Bedini pulse motor could work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwSQOFkNN9E
Basically he is saying he thinks that very quick HV flyback pulses (sharp gradient events) can draw in energy from the vacuum.
If the pulse switching on the coil(s) uses fast switches, he thinks you have a better chance of capturing that energy which is supposedly drawn in from the vacuum.
He says he is going to use SiC Mosfets and diodes to get faster and cleaner switching.
I watched the video and he seems to have no idea what he is doing and using FE keywords like "energy from the vacuum". The translation for these FE keywords is "I have no idea what's going on". That's okay because not knowing but wanting to know is the whole point of doing experiments. When I was a FE virgin I used many of the same keywords, lol. We live and hopefully we learn.
As well he is also not wrong on wanting to get faster and cleaner switching. Figuera, Tesla, Adams and countless other FE inventors mention using open cores specifically in order to produce faster/shorter impulses. This is easily proven by measuring the time period of the magnetic field collapse in an open vs closed core under similar conditions. Here it's really important to follow through. So when an inventor claims they do something for a given reason we should test their claim in the context given. We test all the individual details given by the inventor and then try to apply what we learned from one circuit element conceptually to the whole to learn even more. In this respect it's a learning process.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.06.30, 20:46:38
I watched the video and he seems to have no idea what he is doing and using FE keywords like "energy from the vacuum". The translation for these FE keywords is "I have no idea what's going on". That's okay because not knowing but wanting to know is the whole point of doing experiments. When I was a FE virgin I used many of the same keywords, lol. We live and hopefully we learn.
Well, I know little about quantum physics, but I think they have come to the conclusion that vacuum energy or zero-point energy exists, but I could well be wrong. :)
The problem, I think, is whether there is a way to tap into that vacuum energy to do useful work or not.
I think our Bedini pulse motor experimenter was trying to show that there is a possible scientific explanation, i.e., tapping into zero-point energy, which could make a 'free energy' device at least a possibility, if someone can figure out how to tap into that source of energy in a practical way. Yes, he said he intends to use air core coils on his large pulse motor build to allow for faster and higher amplitude flyback spikes and higher RPM's as well, I think he said. Whether that will work and be beneficial I don't know. I do recall that in one of the old Kapanadze videos Kapanadze apparently said his device only works if he uses an air core coil. Bedini, on the other hand, seemed to prefer soft iron cores on his pulse motor drive coils, or maybe that was just on his solid state bedini 'monopole' pulser circuit. Not sure. :)
Quote from: void on 2025.07.01, 02:16:33
Well, I know little about quantum physics, but I think they have come to the conclusion that vacuum energy or zero-point energy exists, but I could well be wrong. :)
The problem, I think, is whether there is a way to tap into that vacuum energy to do useful work or not.
...
You're right on both counts. In QM, ZPE is accepted. The problem is getting energy out of it, since it is supposed to be the minimum level of this ambient energy. So, a priori, you can't lower the ZPE level to extract the difference.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.07.01, 13:49:12
The problem is getting energy out of it, since it is supposed to be the minimum level of this ambient energy.
This means we need to drain from the energy of our space to zpt, if there is more of it here.
Similar to how we get energy from the difference in temperatures, hot and cold. :)
Quote from: void on 2025.07.01, 02:16:33
Well, I know little about quantum physics, but I think they have come to the conclusion that vacuum energy or zero-point energy exists, but I could well be wrong. :)
You are correct. They have taken the Lamb shift as evidence of its existence.
Void
QuoteWell, I know little about quantum physics, but I think they have come to the conclusion that vacuum energy or zero-point energy exists, but I could well be wrong. :)
The problem, I think, is whether there is a way to tap into that vacuum energy to do useful work or not.
I think terms like "vacuum energy or zero-point energy" are a play on the fabric of space problem. Logically, particles and EM waves cannot move through a space without occupying said space. Thus we must conclude space cannot be empty and must be seething with energy in translation. To claim otherwise makes a mockery of the conservation of mass and energy.
QuoteI think our Bedini pulse motor experimenter was trying to show that there is a possible scientific explanation, i.e., tapping into zero-point energy, which could make a 'free energy' device at least a possibility, if someone can figure out how to tap into that source of energy in a practical way
Suppose two people discover something but don't tell anyone, is it still a discovery and science?. Which begs the question how many people it takes?. Many people seem to think that if they personally cannot see or understand something it cannot exist. Ironically, we don't understand most of the universe. Does it not exist if we don't understand it?, apparently some seem to think so.
QuoteYes, he said he intends to use air core coils on his large pulse motor build to allow for faster and higher amplitude flyback spikes and higher RPM's as well, I think he said. Whether that will work and be beneficial I don't know. I do recall that in one of the old Kapanadze videos Kapanadze apparently said his device only works if he uses an air core coil. Bedini, on the other hand, seemed to prefer soft iron cores on his pulse motor drive coils, or maybe that was just on his solid state bedini 'monopole' pulser circuit. Not sure.
It's cool and there are lots of people trying different things and sharing their thoughts. We can hardly judge anyone for trying. If we never try how would we learn anything new?.
I built and tested all this stuff years ago so I can help. When Bedini say's splitting the positive (I split the negative because I use electron flow notation) he is talking about a modified boost converter. Here is the coil discharge polarity and current flow for 12v batteries,
(+)Battery A (-)>>>>(+)Inductance Coil Discharge(-)>>>>(-)Battery B(+).
As we can see when the coil discharges Battery A and the coil add in series. When the batteries are "split", (+)Batt A(-) and (-)Batt B(+), they are in equilibrium. We do this so when the coil discharges it can discharge to zero volts versus when Batt A is removed and the coil can only discharge to 12v into Batt B. This is just the most efficient way to generate impulses and little more. Bedini didn't invent this and many FE inventors were doing the same thing back around 1920.
Once we understand "splitting the (+) or (-)" is just a very efficient pulse generator we can start looking at other aspects of the circuits in question. I found 99% of people fail because they cannot follow instructions. The inventor claims they build their coils in a specific way with know materials. Then everyone proceeds to build their coils completely different with other materials. It's no wonder they fail, they cannot seem to follow simple instructions. Then the inventor claims the switching is critical and there is only a narrow band where something happens. So everyone basically slaps something together and cries foul when it doesn't work.
This comes back to my prior post...
QuoteI like to use this example, So how many ways can we order all the 52 cards in a pack?
http://www.murderousmaths.co.uk/cardperms.htm
80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636, 856,403,766,975,289,505,440, 883,277,824,000,000,000,000
"Any time you pick up a well-shuffled deck, you are almost certainly holding an arrangement of cards that has never before existed and might not exist again."
The odds are stacked against us and like many things if everything is not exactly correct it will not work. Imagine if computer builders and programmers just threw a bunch of shit together ad hock. This is not what professionals do and neither should we.
AC
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.07.02, 05:46:21
This means we need to drain from the energy of our space to zpt, if there is more of it here.
Similar to how we get energy from the difference in temperatures, hot and cold. :)
Also similar to energy from permanent magnets. Energy could be extracted from the ZPE, but not in a closed cycle. For example, with the Casimir effect, 2 very close plates will be attracted to each other because of the "depression" of the ZPF between the plates, compared to the one outside. They will be able to work. But to start again, how can they be returned to the starting position without expending the same energy as they provided? The same problem arises as with magnets. There's no more magic in quantum mechanics than there is in classical physics. :(
The "Bendini" guy's latest video. He shows his method of making 8 strand litz wire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn8GlIq45H0
Oh the endless days hand winding coils and the dreaded litz wire, lol.
It got a lot easier with a 3D printer to make the coil formers and coil winders. I wound so many coils I kept wearing my fingerprints off and none of my phone and home biometric security would work. It's just hard and tedious work any way we look at it.
Will the researcher in the video succeed?. I give them odds of maybe 1%. I say this because they are trying to reverse engineer the technology backwards. No FE inventors started with electronic switching. They used mechanical switching with lots of noise and HV spikes, methodically determined what worked and was required and only then tried to replicate the effect with electronics.
For example, in a similar setup I bumped the 12v input to 300v into a storage capacitor and dumped it across mechanical switches producing spikes near 5kV. In effect, all the stuff 99% of most try to avoid because it tends to wipe out their electronics, DMM and DSO. Hence the reason why everyone avoiding the difficult stuff tends to fail. As many inventors claimed, it's in the worst case scenario everyone tries to avoid that new insights can be found. In effect, learning.
AC
On a whim I decided to go to ALi Express. Lo and behold, ready made Bedinis! Here's an example: https://tinyurl.com/3eakkd44
I remember all this FE stuff being impossible to wrap my mind around early on.
It's just a bunch of coils of wire, electrical components and switches. There is literally nothing we see present which could give the impression something new is happening. However it's not what we see it's what we don't see or understand.
For example, we could see a person as just another person. However a doctor might imagine all the biology under the surface, a chemist all the cells and chemical reactions and a physicist trillions of particles and fields interacting within a physical space. We can see the more expertise and understanding a person has the less they tend to generalize. In Free Energy tech generalizing is what kills progress.
This may be why many FE inventors talked like physicists. T.H.Moray is a perfect example, https://archive.org/details/moray-the-seaof-energy
"The Sea of Energy in Which the Earth Floats" by T Henry Moray was a turning point for me. My Eureka moment understanding that a layman's view will never cut it. These FE inventors were brilliant people completely obsessed with learning and understanding everything. They were not weekend warriors they lived and breathed this technology for decades. Moray worked 30 years on one of his Radiant Energy Devices. So nobody should be upset that they didn't get the results they wanted with a few experiments.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.07.29, 16:13:07
They were not weekend warriors they lived and breathed this technology for decades. Moray worked 30 years on one of his Radiant Energy Devices. So nobody should be upset that they didn't get the results they wanted with a few experiments.
To play devils' advocate:
It would also appear as though some individuals have "happened upon" certain phenomena -
The story of Alfred Hubbard would suggest this, where purportedly at the age of 19 he discovered a way to propel a sizeable water craft (with media representation IINM)
Using his "self powered" device (with carbon steel as a core nonetheless, again, if the reports are anything to go by)
https://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm (https://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm)
Excelsior
QuoteTo play devils' advocate:
It would also appear as though some individuals have "happened upon" certain phenomena -
The story of Alfred Hubbard would suggest this, where purportedly at the age of 19 he discovered a way to propel a sizeable water craft (with media representation IINM)
Using his "self powered" device (with carbon steel as a core nonetheless, again, if the reports are anything to go by)
Indeed, I spent a great deal of time researching and replicating Hubbard's supposed work.
As the story goes, Hubbard was working as a bus boy at a high end hotel when he met Nikola Tesla. They became friends and Tesla supposedly shared information with him. Apparently Tesla shared his work with many people who then miraculously became brilliant inventors, wink wink. As such I don't think most people "happened upon" anything.
Here's a clue why most have no idea how the Hubbard device works nor could they reproduce it. Hubbard claimed many of his first devices used an automotive distributor for switching. Do you know how a "distributor" works?. It requires HV, above 5 kV as a minimum, usually around 30 kV. So, of course, when people tried to replicate the effect using 12v and transistors they failed miserably. 99% of what's on the internet is bs meant to distract and I used archives, old news articles and the observations of others. Here it's helpful to love puzzles and problems and treat this technology as such. Don't read too much into what you think you see, do it to learn above all else and enjoy the ride.
Hubbard's story is a tragedy, he sold out to a supposed "radium company" which was a shell company used by a major American oil company to bury technology. He was forced to sign gag orders and never even paid what was owed. He then became a drug addict and wasted his life away. It always seems to be the same old sad story.
I almost fell into this same trap, however studying psychology, I was able to understand how I was being manipulated. I understand many think the following is bs but it helped me... https://dailystoic.com/9-core-stoic-beliefs/. In effect, if you value others opinions more than your own ability to learn you will fail. It's not about others it's about you.
AC
lets say we had 3 coils such similar to what we have seen of hubbards device. 1 large center secondary and 2 of lesser diameter. have the large in the middle and 2 on opposite sides of the center coil, and each have their own cores. if we apply input to 1 of the outer coils, it will induce the center coil. being the input coil is only on one side of the center coil, most of the input flux will be cutting the center coil windings on that side of the center coil. lets say 1v per turn for both the input coil and the center coil. now we apply input to both outer coils. input coil 1 induces one side of the center coil and input coil 2 induces the center coil windings on the other side of the center coil. input coil 1 and 2 have 1v per turn. if input coil 1 induces 1v per turn on the center winding, particularly on that side of the center coil which was taking on most of coil 1 flux, and coil 2 is inducing 1v per turn on the center coil windings on the other side of the center coil, 1v + 1v should be 2v per turn on the center winding. if it were 5 input coils, each having their own sections of the center coil to induce, add up those induced sections. 1v per turn of each input coil inducing 1v per section of the center coil should produce 5v per turn ov the center coil. like adding batteries in series, each section, 5 sections, of the center winding having 1v would add up to 5v per turn. why would he have multiple individual coils around the center and not just 1? the more outer coils we have, inducing their own sections of the center coil, the more voltage induced into the center windings. it is not common that the more input windings we add, that the output voltage increases. ;)
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.07.30, 05:00:33
lets say we had 3 coils such similar to what we have seen of hubbards device. 1 large center secondary and 2 of lesser diameter. have the large in the middle and 2 on opposite sides of the center coil, and each have their own cores. if we apply input to 1 of the outer coils, it will induce the center coil. being the input coil is only on one side of the center coil, most of the input flux will be cutting the center coil windings on that side of the center coil. lets say 1v per turn for both the input coil and the center coil. now we apply input to both outer coils. input coil 1 induces one side of the center coil and input coil 2 induces the center coil windings on the other side of the center coil. input coil 1 and 2 have 1v per turn. if input coil 1 induces 1v per turn on the center winding, particularly on that side of the center coil which was taking on most of coil 1 flux, and coil 2 is inducing 1v per turn on the center coil windings on the other side of the center coil, 1v + 1v should be 2v per turn on the center winding. if it were 5 input coils, each having their own sections of the center coil to induce, add up those induced sections. 1v per turn of each input coil inducing 1v per section of the center coil should produce 5v per turn ov the center coil. like adding batteries in series, each section, 5 sections, of the center winding having 1v would add up to 5v per turn. why would he have multiple individual coils around the center and not just 1? the more outer coils we have, inducing their own sections of the center coil, the more voltage induced into the center windings. it is not common that the more input windings we add, that the output voltage increases. ;)
mags
Mags,
You are absolutely 'right on' my friend! It is all about charge separation in a secondary as influenced or induced by primaries. It is a means to an OU device!
Although I have performed many of these tests on closed magnetic cores, it will be interesting to see the results of a Hubbard based device with open magnetic paths!
Regards,
Pm
dropped it off the bench and broke one of the cores. have to cut the secondary out and wind a new core with a primary, then rewind the secondary
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.07.31, 03:04:15
dropped it off the bench and broke one of the cores. have to cut the secondary out and wind a new core with a primary, then rewind the secondary
mags
It would be interesting to know the inductance measurements for the secondary and just 1 primary plus two other measurements I'll describe later when you get the assembly back together. We can then predict the possible gain with the device utilizing my RLE technique with a pre-bias current in the device. For those not familiar with RLE, I've attached a paper below.
The advantage to this architecture is as you stated previously, each primary E-Field influence is additive in the secondary with a commensurate reduction in the primary magnetization current. Also not commonly known if at all, primary magnetization current can be reduced in any common transformer by reducing the core magnetic path(s). IOW, this increases the primary inductance using the same number of turns while the permeability of the core remains the same.
Pm
this is the model i followed. 1st pic. the pdf i must have posted many times. nobody seemed to get into what it was telling us and references hubbard coil. 2nd pic. the pdf names it habard, but ive seen both are the same design it seems.
3rd pic is a dual core that the sec is wound through 2 cores. it says that shorting or loading the sec increases the primary inductance instead of lowering it, and wont kill resonance of the primary as would a typical transformer sec loading would.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.08.01, 04:20:38
this is the model i followed. 1st pic. the pdf i must have posted many times. nobody seemed to get into what it was telling us and references hubbard coil. 2nd pic. the pdf names it habard, but ive seen both are the same design it seems.
3rd pic is a dual core that the sec is wound through 2 cores. it says that shorting or loading the sec increases the primary inductance instead of lowering it, and wont kill resonance of the primary as would a typical transformer sec loading would.
mags
Thanks for the info. The effect is common to ordinary transformer operation but is not properly understood IMO. For example, in a toroid core arrangement with one primary and one secondary with equal turns, the secondary will have the same volts/turn as is applied to the primary minus a slight loss as you well know. The loss is due to leakage flux around the core that creates a less than perfect coupling.
However, what is not realized by most, is that the volts/turn on the secondary is created by the E-Field in the primary that in turn creates charge separation only in the amount of wire that exists in the center hole between the top and bottom surfaces of the toroid core. IOW, the remaining 3/4 of a turn is basically just a connection between the ends of this induced center wire. This can be proven experimentally and I fully understand many here will take issue with what I'm saying! I've attached a pix of a custom built core that utilizes 100% of the secondary.
So, in consideration of this info, most standard transformers are operating at less than optimum efficiency. Hubbard seemed to understand this and applied it to an advantage.
I have much more to say on this subject but my youngest daughter just had major surgery early this morning so I won't have much time at the moment.
Pm
im not really an e field that does the inducing kinda guy. is there an e field around a stationary magnet? a magnet inducing a wire, why is the e field not showing itself when bothe mag and wire are stationary? im a flux cutting farady kinda guy.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.08.02, 00:05:01
im not really an e field that does the inducing kinda guy. is there an e field around a stationary magnet? a magnet inducing a wire, why is the e field not showing itself when bothe mag and wire are stationary? im a flux cutting farady kinda guy.
mags
And therein lies the paradox. Magnet induces coil through proximity, but without constant change when induced, there is no reaction, no reaction - no resistance. It's then about how to change how the coil reacts to change.
my theory...
i propose electrons are not just negative particles. im thinking electrons, when we apply potential across a wire that they have a neg and pos side to them. lets say the neg side and pos side are the electrons axis. also propose that electrons are the source of the magnetic field that occurs when electrons flow through the wire with potential applied to it. im thinking the electrons magnetic field goes around the pos and neg axis. more current(electrons flowing), more electrons aligned pos and neg, more, stronger magnetic field around the wire.
again, with a pos and a neg side to the electron, when we apply that input potential to the wire, the electrons align accordingly to the input charge potential of the wire, thus more electrons aligned, more mag field.
similarly, when we drag a magnet pole across a wire, the electrons mag field aligns with that dragging magnet field, which would align those electrons pos and neg sides accordingly, producing potential charge on that wire.
ive thought about what we are told of the e field a lot. something about it does not jive with me as to how it is described. i dont see any logic as to why there is no e field potential affecting a wire when a magnetic field is present, or even detected, when the mag field and wire are stationary. so my magluvin mind worked out this 'theory'. again, it is just a theory, but it makes more sense to me than an e field that only presents itself when a magnets field is moving, without any real explanation as to why that is.
and maybe, just maybe, my theory is why the e field appears because we have aligned the electrons as i have described, pos and neg by way of draging a magnets field of which the electrons inherent field then aligns with that dragging magnet field, there by a train of electrons in the wire aligned pos in one direction of the wire and neg in the other direction.. all of which may explain why electrons flow in one direction or the other, 90deg of the moving magnets flux.
mags
The Bedini guy again. This video is very interesting and somewhat inspiring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGCoEQAaqrQ
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.08.04, 00:23:35
The Bedini guy again. This video is very interesting and somewhat inspiring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGCoEQAaqrQ
Well, so invite this guy here since he apparently has some real experimental skills ...even if the subject matter has been beaten to death already.
This should pique his interest:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43692#msg43692
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43698#msg43698
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.08.02, 00:05:01
im not really an e field that does the inducing kinda guy. is there an e field around a stationary magnet? a magnet inducing a wire, why is the e field not showing itself when bothe mag and wire are stationary? im a flux cutting farady kinda guy.
mags
I respect your position! However, we might consider that induction via a moving PM past a coil is "basically" equivalent to a primary inducing a secondary. Both produce an EMF in the coil or secondary.
FWIW, the transformer topology shown in the pix below produces COPs in the range of 1.2-1.3 utilizing charge separation knowledge and RLE.
Pm
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4703.0;attach=53977)
is the frequency specific to the ferrite ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.08.14, 20:51:44
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4703.0;attach=53977)
is the frequency specific to the ferrite ?
No.
For you to consider, there is a lot more which I will post depending the reaction I get.
Mike
Quote from: Centraflow on 2025.08.15, 07:45:10
For you to consider, there is a lot more which I will post depending the reaction I get.
I am unable to visualize the following without a diagram:
QuoteFrom the centre to the outside in the "form" of two toroids with a gap, not really
two toroids but one, formed by the "apparent" doubling over, and re-bending
around to leave a gap for "connections" and "magnetic field regulation".
...
A capacitor is built in the form of two individually shorted coils (bifilar). These coils
form capacitor plates, not only that, form a paramagnetic core over which another
bifilar coil is wound.
For example, there are 2 ways to connect a bifilar coil. Which one is it ?
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53349)
Quote from: verpies on 2025.08.15, 15:21:08
I am unable to visualize the following without a diagram:
For example, there are 2 ways to connect a bifilar coil. Which one is it ?
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53349)
Both wrong.
Each coil is shorted, start is connected to end of the same coil. They no longer have inductance, but capacitance to one another.
When this capacitance charges, the E field is between each "wire", the magnetic field is at 90º.
Hope that helps.
Mike
Quote from: Centraflow on 2025.08.15, 16:26:47
Hope that helps.
It doesn't help. I still do not see the axes, connections, proportions and orientations of the coils, plates and switches.
It is not without a reason that they say a picture is worth a 1000 words.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.08.15, 18:57:03
It doesn't help. I still do not see the axes, connections, proportions and orientations of the coils, plates and switches.
It is not without a reason that they say a picture is worth a 1000 words.
Nice try, the circuit I'm not posting, only a description, that way you have to experiment.
I am talking of others, not you in this case, this is a public area.
Mike
Verpies, like this.
OK
This bifilar "coil" which is not a coil but two capacitor plates, has another bifilar coil wound over the top.
The centre "first bifilar"now is a core to the second bifilar wound over the top.
Now each coil of the second bifilar are second plates to the core plates when biased with two different grounds, "two supplies" .
When all is connected correctly with the correct extra coils and switches (mosfets), that secondary bifilar also collects induced current and keeps the input biasing capacitors always charged.
There is a lot more, but that is the start to overunity. That core (two plates) have electrons which are in a higher energy state.
Verpies, you know all about higher energy electron states O0
Mike
G6GVA
&
EA5***
The Bedini guy's latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e4iMAU0DDM
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.08.17, 22:40:27
The Bedini guy's latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e4iMAU0DDM
He seems to know what he is talking about.
Higher energy electrons is key.
Mike
Here is a continuation of the pdf
Mike
Mosfet driven by Light pipe.
The wiring is straight forward with direct coupling from toslink connector to mosfet driver then to the mosfet.
Decoupling caps on the mosfet driver are essential as noise will be the result without them. The data sheets explain this.
Mic4422 was the mosfet driver I used which will run from 5 volts to 36volts
I used a 9v battery which is fine for logic level Mosfets.
You can just double the supply voltage to 18 volts if you need a higher gate voltage. The toslink supply will need to have a 5v regulator.
This works up to 1.4 megahertz after which the duty cycle became unequal . This can be fixed by altering the source duty for correct balance but clearly this would be the reliable limit.
In my case 33khz was the maximum required at this stage.
I also found that my fy8300 3 channel generator was not symmetrical unless cmos output was selected. These are cheap for what you get but have many flaws.
One of the other advantages of this is that you are able to operate your contraptions from some distance away as I don't trust my ageing brain for safety with high voltages.
In my case I also have a pacemaker fitted which is another can of undefined worms .
Keeping the noise generated from high current high voltage switching is also nice to have, knowing that any induced noise is in one place and can be dealt with a lot easier than chasing ground loops where everything contributes as an antenna.
Having complex switching circuits with the inherent noise and human mistakes on your well lit, well equipped bench is important
in my case as with others I assume.
Making 3 phase motor controllers is another application where isolation makes things very friendly. It would not be hard to use this same method in reverse for feedback although I have not tackled this yet.
I hope that this will make experimenting easier and safer for most who are rightly over cautious about high voltage to the degree that prevents their progress as there is no fallback position from high current dc passing through your body.
Continuation
I read in the PDF:
"Arising from this is a differential output where both are positive leads. By placing a resistive load across the output, current is created which is only subject to that resistance"
This text contains nothing but platitudes. Of course, current depends solely on the potential difference. Potential alone is completely meaningless. Relative to what? The choice is completely arbitrary.
Energy depends on the reference frame, and therefore on the potential chosen. If we connect the terminal of a capacitor, which we consider to be zero potential, regardless of its potential relative to anything else, which may be positive or negative, we can only draw from the resistor the current resulting from the potential difference of the other plate.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.08.23, 17:53:30
This text contains nothing but platitudes.
There is a differentce between platitudes and inability of technical unambiguous expression.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.08.24, 00:27:08
There is a differentce between platitudes and inability of technical unambiguous expression.
Certainly. But as the poet and critic Boileau said: '
Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease'
While approximate language may be acceptable in a discussion, it is no longer acceptable in a study that is supposed to teach us something. If we have to play guessing games and invent what the author might have meant, when even the author himself doesn't always really know, we would need as many answers as there are interpretations, and we would never get anywhere.
I only respond to what I read. It is up to the author to rephrase if something else is to be understood, and perhaps before that, to try to understand what gauge invariance is in the context of electromagnetism.
Feel free to respond based on what you have understood.
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2025.08.21, 04:52:24
Mosfet driven by Light pipe.
The wiring is straight forward with direct coupling from toslink connector to mosfet driver then to the mosfet.
Decoupling caps on the mosfet driver are essential as noise will be the result without them. The data sheets explain this.
Mic4422 was the mosfet driver I used which will run from 5 volts to 36volts
I used a 9v battery which is fine for logic level Mosfets.
You can just double the supply voltage to 18 volts if you need a higher gate voltage. The toslink supply will need to have a 5v regulator.
This works up to 1.4 megahertz after which the duty cycle became unequal . This can be fixed by altering the source duty for correct balance but clearly this would be the reliable limit.
Is there a schematic available? Interesiting concept. Is it suitable for high side switching? Perhaps we can explore this more in a separate thread? Thank you for providing these information.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.08.23, 17:53:30
Energy depends on the reference frame,...
Mass too, if you consider the Lorentz transformation.
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2025.08.21, 04:52:24
This works up to 1.4 megahertz after which the duty cycle became unequal .
What is the minimum ON pulse width that you can get out of it ?
714ns ? 357ns ? 8ns ? ...
Good question!
Its 4us disappointing I have reflections . I have more work to do .
I will start a new thread on this when the performance is more useful.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.08.25, 08:56:01
Mass too, if you consider the Lorentz transformation.
Mass is invariant under Lorentz transformation if we consider proper mass (rest mass). The concept of relativistic mass is obsolete and is no longer even taught.
I don't see what this remark adds. Potential or kinetic energy, for example, has no intrinsic reality, no location, unlike mass. It is a potentiality that can be exploited in one system by depleting another, and this is where the question of the reference frame takes on its full meaning, unlike in the case of mass.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.08.25, 16:04:54
Mass is invariant under Lorentz transformation if we consider proper mass (rest mass).
Of course, at rest there is no relative motion and the Lorentz factor degenerates to 1.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.08.25, 16:04:54
The concept of relativistic mass is obsolete and is no longer even taught.
These are merely contemporary trends in physics.
If variant mass is not currently fashionable as the reason for the inability to accelerate it past c, then what is ?
You have only two ways out of this question, i.e. length (space) contraction and time dilation. If you use any of them, I will counter that with the dimensional definition of mass in terms of space and time.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.08.25, 16:04:54
I don't see what this remark adds.
It emphasizes that motion alters the measurements of space, time and mass (charge too, btw).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.08.25, 16:04:54
Potential or kinetic energy, for example, has no intrinsic reality, no location, unlike mass.
Reality is in the eye of the beholder, just like color. Later, I will argue that this applies to space, too.
If the prerequisite for the realness is "location" in Minkowski's space then the relativity of space will throw a monkey wrench into this condition.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.08.25, 16:04:54
It is a potentiality that can be exploited in one system by depleting another, and this is where the question of the reference frame takes on its full meaning, unlike in the case of mass.
Seems like you are distinguishing energy as an idea and mass as an object. ...and you attempt to list some of their properties. I was in the same place mentally 30 years ago and I still think that energy is not an object. Since then I have understood that many other phenomena are just ideas / abstractions. I will agree that color, space, time, force fields and energy, etc... are just ideas - not objects. This will lead us to an interesting question whether compound ideas can become objects, in other words: if something can be expressed solely in terms of these ideas, can that something be considered an object ?
Another interesting question is whether ideas can have properties ...or do properties exist only in the realm of objects (such as the temperature of water) ?
If space has properties such as geometric dimensionality, curvature and "locations" (which you have mentioned), does that mean that space is an object or an idea (like a geometric reference system) ?
As a farewell task, I would like you to consider the dimensions of energy and mass in terms of other concepts.
In English language the word "dimension" has several meanings. One is geometrical, others are not.
In this case I am referring to dimensional analysis of concepts, e.g.:
speed = s/t
acceleration = s/t^2
volumetric flow = s^3/t
etc...
...and please do not come back quoting the SI system's fundamental units for energy and mass, That would be axiomatically boring and dogmatic and will not lead to the expansion of knowledge and understanding.
F6FLT
QuoteI read in the PDF:
"Arising from this is a differential output where both are positive leads. By placing a resistive load across the output, current is created which is only subject to that resistance"
This text contains nothing but platitudes. Of course, current depends solely on the potential difference. Potential alone is completely meaningless. Relative to what? The choice is completely arbitrary.
This may be true of grade school level science but that's not what we are talking about here.
In fact, an "electric current" is defined solely by how much charge or charge carriers pass a given point per unit of time... period.
For example, we charge the surface of a ball with some free electrons and throw said ball into space. The extra free electrons moving with the ball constitute an electric current which could remain in motion for millions of years. When said extra free electrons moving with the ball hit another object they redistribute over the surface of the object which is also considered an electric current.
This example is why it's important to apply critical thinking and first principals. If people want to understand electricity read the works of Volta, Ampere, Faraday and Tesla not this watered down nonsense most are being fed. These people literally invented the electrodynamics we know today.
Aking21
QuoteThe Bedini guy's latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e4iMAU0DDM
I like it and he is off to a good start. Note in the video, the circuit diagram shows the battery current flowing from the (-) terminal to the (+) terminal or electron flow notation which is the correct form of notation. This matters and shows they are trying to work with reality not hearsay. Only the (-) free electrons can move, if the (+) charges moved the copper atoms of the wires would have to flow which is absurd.
FYI, the majority of all the credible FE inventors used electron flow notation for a reason.
The first clue should have been that we can add (-) free electrons to a wire or subtract them from it but this is not true of the (+) charges or protons. Even a child should be able to understand this and yet many are still using the completely outdated standard form of notation. So it's important to understand the actual facts of a matter versus all the hearsay out there.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.08.26, 15:52:25
Aking21
I like it and he is off to a good start. Note in the video, the circuit diagram shows the battery current flowing from the (-) terminal to the (+) terminal or electron flow notation which is the correct form of notation. This matters and shows they are trying to work with reality not hearsay. Only the (-) free electrons can move, if the (+) charges moved the copper atoms of the wires would have to flow which is absurd.
FYI, the majority of all the credible FE inventors used electron flow notation for a reason.
The first clue should have been that we can add (-) free electrons to a wire or subtract them from it but this is not true of the (+) charges or protons. Even a child should be able to understand this and yet many are still using the completely outdated standard form of notation. So it's important to understand the actual facts of a matter versus all the hearsay out there.
i have to say, 100% correct in my opinion ;)
mags
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.08.26, 15:25:29
F6FLT
This may be true of grade school level science but that's not what we are talking about here.
...
In this case, you should not use the language of grade school level science. I responded to a specific point that I cited, see above, a statement that is a truism. And you respond to my message about something else, with a barrage of similar truisms that we all agree on, without addressing the specific objection I raised, while imagining that your response is relevant. I am past the age of listening to such truisms, as I have heard them so often before.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.08.26, 12:33:59
...
Another interesting question is whether ideas can have properties ...or do properties exist only in the realm of objects (such as the temperature of water) ?
If space has properties such as geometric dimensionality, curvature and "locations" (which you have mentioned), does that mean that space is an object or an idea (like a geometric reference system) ?
As a farewell task, I would like you to consider the dimensions of energy and mass in terms of other concepts.
In English language the word "dimension" has several meanings. One is geometrical, others are not.
...
In French too, exactly the same word, and the same meanings.
Objects/ideas, your discussion is becoming more philosophical than scientific. That's not a criticism, I'm interested in philosophy and I've been immersed in it for family reasons. I see it as a way of thinking about the world rationally on subjects that are beyond the reach of science, or rather "not yet within the reach of science." So we don't know, but we try to reason logically about the hypotheses made about what we see or feel and don't know.
You will no doubt tell me that this is also partly true in science. That's true, but the difference is that in science, we also take the trouble to verify hypotheses through experiments and observations, whereas in philosophy, we would probably like to do the same, but we generally don't have the means to do so.
Once the verifications have been made, the hypotheses become knowledge that allows us to act on the world, knowledge that I would describe as such because it allows for operational results.
Returning to mass and space, the only thing that interests us from a scientific point of view is: "Does the model agree well with observations?". The model can describe an idea in such a way as to make it operational. If the model describes mass with properties, then we can perform calculations and verify that the model works. Whether mass is an idea or an object is irrelevant; science simply needs to define the terms of its models so that we can use them in practice and compare them with what we observe.
Newtonian mechanics is a proven model of mass, as is relativity, which is more precise, and there is no reason to believe that in the future the best model will not be found in another theory, one that reconciles quantum mechanics and general relativity, for example, which are currently incompatible.
The idea of a reality underlying the model, which we had in the 19th century, is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. We cannot know what "really" exists in the universe; we can only say that a model works (or does not work) to describe what we see. The objects defined in models should not be taken as real objects. They are descriptors. They can change as science evolves.
Sorry for this long preamble, but it is necessary to explain that when I make the distinction between energy and mass, I am only referring to objects in the model. Proper mass is an invariant. Energy is not an invariant; there is no kinetic energy in the reference frame of displacement, whereas there is indeed mass in its own reference frame. It is this difference that I was emphasizing; it is relative to the model and the objects in the model, not to real objects that we infer.
Magluvin
Quotei have to say, 100% correct in my opinion
I found much of FE is like the the standard vs electron flow problem.
How can one claim to understand electrical theory but still make an amateur mistake like thinking the (+) charges/protons are flowing in wires?. Yet I still see over 90% of people drawing basic circuit flows wrong. It's no wonder so few cannot make any progress when their basic premise of how a circuit actually works is flawed. To be clear, we are only talking about the flow of charges in a wire conductor and I realize (+) charges can flow in open circuits and fluid substances.
So I found most of FE tech is not some grand awakening or realization. More so finding all the false assumptions and mistakes made by mainstream science. I mean for 100 years most mistakenly thought the (+) charges were flowing in wires so we obviously still have a lot to learn. Here is a good example, https://scitechdaily.com/baffling-scientists-for-centuries-new-study-unravels-mystery-of-static-electricity/
So in fact, it's only recently that science figured out how something as simple as "static electricity" actually works. Most take it for granted that everything is supposedly known but that isn't even remotely true.
It's kind of comical, static electricity isn't static, has nothing to do with rubbing stuff together only contact, is not remotely uniform, more so a mosaic of individual surface charges clumped together. As well not only a charge transfer but charged material being transferred between objects. Ergo, what most people believed is in fact false.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.08.27, 16:10:14
How can one claim to understand electrical theory but still make an amateur mistake like thinking the (+) charges/protons are flowing in wires?. Yet I still see over 90% of people drawing basic circuit flows wrong. It's no wonder so few cannot make any progress when their basic premise of how a circuit actually works is flawed
Does that mean that conceptual correctness matters ?
...or only mathematical correctness matters, ...like the proportions present in the Ohm's law, that is the foundation of electric circuit design ?
Verpies
QuoteDoes that mean that conceptual correctness matters ?
...or only mathematical correctness matters, ...like the proportions present in the Ohm's law, that is the foundation of electric circuit design ?
That sounds like a loaded question imo.
You seem to be implying I need to pick sides when I don't. I only look at the current theory and evidence which makes the most sense to me and apply it to what I already know. I only adopt what is relevant and works. I don't pick sides because it's a losing proposition.
For example, https://scitechdaily.com/baffling-scientists-for-centuries-new-study-unravels-mystery-of-static-electricity/
Obviously the mathematical and conceptual models were all wrong. Which version of misguided and wrong would you have me believe?. This is why it's important not to limit our options or pigeonhole ourselves.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.08.27, 17:42:55
That sounds like a loaded question imo.
Loaded with what ?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.08.27, 16:10:14
...
So I found most of FE tech is not some grand awakening or realization. More so finding all the false assumptions and mistakes made by mainstream science.
...
[Diatribe ON]
This "FE tech" does not exist. No device works. There is no "FE tech" because there is no "FE science," no theory, no formalism that would allow for comparison with measurements.
Mainstream science has proven itself, and a whole range of fantastic technologies have emerged from it, unlike FE, which gives an idea of nothingness.
If the most prominent FE proponents were less pretentious, perhaps they could learn from their mistakes, make progress, overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect, and invent something that works. But no. They spend their time ranting against scientists in the name of vague interpretations of popular science that they barely understand, in addition to confusing it with science.
The movement of charges in a conductor seen as a flow of charged balls is popular science, not electromagnetism. Does the scitechdaily.com link cited call into question Maxwell's equations, the value of the electron's charge, Coulomb's force? Of course not. The theory is solid; what we understand from the article is the difficulty of application in the field of condensed matter associated with electromagnetism, a general difficulty in complex rather than elementary fields. What is not solid are the interpretations of scientific subjects, and the less you know about it, the more ridiculous your interpretations are.
When I see one of these jokers attacking conventional science, projecting the limits of his knowledge onto those without whom he would not even have the concept of the electron, I am reminded of a yapping dog pissing at the foot of a cathedral.
When these people have created something that works, then they can give lessons. For now, they are making themselves look ridiculous and only shine in the eyes of other useless people of their ilk.
[Diatribe OFF]
Verpies
QuoteLoaded with what ?
AI: "A loaded question is a type of question that contains an implicit assumption, often making it difficult for the respondent to answer without appearing to agree with that assumption."
QuoteDoes that mean that conceptual correctness matters ?
...or only mathematical correctness matters, ...like the proportions present in the Ohm's law, that is the foundation of electric circuit design ?
It sounds like you wanted me to choose between whether conceptual correctness matters or only mathematical correctness matters. Everything matters but I wouldn't limit myself to one or the other.
Relating to your example of ohms law which shows the relationship between I, V and R as long as the temperature and physical conditions remain constant. It works conceptually and mathematically... but not all the time. In fact it would be super easy to appear to violate ohms law under many conditions relating to a high rate of change and HV circuits. At HV the charges ie. electrons, tend to radiate from the conductor thus the current (I) reduces the longer the conductor length. It's the equivalent of a leaky pipe, in fact we call the phenomena corona or leakage in HV circuits. It should also be obvious this could appear to violate another law called Kirchhoff's law.
So we need to be clear, ohms law only applies under a limited number of specific conditions relating to low voltage closed circuits. Very few if any of which exist in nature so ohms law is mainly a man made contrivance.
Ohms law like many supposed laws is also an overly simplistic statement of the obvious. If we have a pipe full of water with a flow of I and a known Resistance/loss per unit length of pipe it's super simple to determine the initial pressure which produced the flow. Hell maybe I could win a Nobel, I=V/R except when portions of I called "leakage" radiate from the circuit reducing I. Said leakage plus I represent the total flow in the system minus any conversion of matter to energy or vice versa.
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.08.27, 21:01:15
[Diatribe ON]
This "FE tech" does not exist. No device works.
[Diatribe OFF]
Do aliens from a higher civilization have FE ?
All we know for sure, since an FE genius has confirmed it, is that they don't need FE machines to get around; they ride pink unicorns. ;)
QuoteSo we need to be clear, ohms law only applies under a limited number of specific conditions relating to low voltage closed circuits. Very few if any of which exist in nature so ohms law is mainly a man made contrivance.
Verpies got me thinking more about ohms law and my last post above.
Ohms law like many supposed laws is an overly simplistic statement of the obvious which only applies under under very specific conditions. Ohms law only applies to ohmic materials having constant properties. It does not apply to systems, like we see in nature, where the material properties are non-uniform and can change.
For example, ohm's law does not apply to non-ohmic or non-linear devices like diodes and batteries where the resistance can change. Which confirms my statement that ohms law is basically useless in nature where all the variables are always changing along a given path. So as Faraday implied much of the math and equations are gross generalizations. Faraday's reasoning was we cannot calculate anything accurately where all the variables are always changing so we should just ignore most of the details for simplicity. I also find this to be the case in much of physics.
For example, ask an AI to calculate the voltage, current and resistance per inch in a lightning bolt 1 km long. It will babble on using all kinds of equations but if you ask it if the calculations are accurate it will tell you ...
these are gross estimates or order-of-magnitude approximations, LMAO. In fact, basically useless because the plasma stream is wildly non-uniform where all the variables are changing per unit length.
It's almost comical, when the AI did try to calculate the variables it averaged everything which is almost always the case. They take the beginning conditions and the end conditions and basically ignore everything in between. Quite scientific, ignoring 99% of the variables and conditions between two points. Even more comical, like many people the first thing the AI did was try to apply ohm's law to my question, LOL. It's just mind boggling...
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.08.27, 23:55:16
It sounds like you wanted me to choose between whether conceptual correctness matters or only mathematical correctness matters. Everything matters but I wouldn't limit myself to one or the other.
It's fine that you want to expand the domain of the question.
I want to make a point that mathematical correctness does not guarantee conceptual correctness.
In fact mathematical success can lend credibility to a flawed concept.
Below are several historical examples from science where theories were mathematically correct (often yielding accurate predictions, fitting data well and resulting in working devices) but conceptually incorrect (failing to capture the true underlying reality).
These cases illustrate how mathematical and even empirical success can mask conceptual flaws.
- Ptolemaic Geocentric Model (Ancient Greece to Middle Ages): This model used complex epicycles and deferents to describe planetary motion around Earth. Mathematically, it could predict celestial positions with reasonable accuracy for astronomical tables and navigation. However, it was conceptually wrong because the solar system is heliocentric, with planets orbiting the Sun, not Earth. The geocentric assumption stemmed from an incorrect view of Earth's place in the universe, later overturned by Copernicus and Kepler.
- Phlogiston Theory (17th-18th Centuries): This explained combustion as the release of a substance called phlogiston from materials. It mathematically accounted for mass changes in reactions (though inconsistently) and fit observations like rusting or burning. Conceptually, it was wrong because combustion involves oxidation with oxygen, not the loss of a hypothetical element; Lavoisier's work on conservation of mass revealed the flaw.
- Bohr's Atomic Model (1913): Niels Bohr's model depicted electrons orbiting the nucleus in fixed circular paths, quantized by angular momentum. It mathematically predicted the spectral lines of hydrogen and ionized helium with high precision, matching experimental data. Conceptually, it was incorrect because electrons do not follow classical orbits; quantum mechanics later showed they behave as probability waves, not particles in deterministic paths.
- Sommerfeld's Extension of the Bohr Model (Early 20th Century): Arnold Sommerfeld refined Bohr's model by introducing elliptical orbits and relativistic effects. His equations mathematically reproduced the fine structure of hydrogen's spectrum accurately, even matching later quantum-relativistic derivations. Conceptually, it was flawed for the same reason as Bohr's—electrons are not "tiny balls" in classical orbits; this was superseded by full quantum mechanics.
- Rayleigh-Jeans Law for Blackbody Radiation (Late 19th Century): Derived from classical statistical mechanics, this law mathematically described the energy distribution of blackbody radiation at low frequencies. It fit data in that regime but predicted an "ultraviolet catastrophe" (infinite energy at high frequencies). Conceptually, it was wrong because it applied classical physics to quantum-scale phenomena; Planck's quantum hypothesis resolved this.
These examples show how mathematical prowess can sustain incorrect concepts until paradigm-shifting discoveries emerge.
This is still happening today, e.g.:
We can precisely describe mathematically how the force between two permanent magnets depends on the magnetic flux density gradient (we can even build machines based on this mathematical relationship), but most scientisct cannot conceptually define magnetic flux any more than the mechanism of that force.
Verpies
QuoteI want to make a point that mathematical correctness does not guarantee conceptual correctness.
In fact mathematical success can lend credibility to a flawed concept.
Agree, it's easy to get lost in the math and equations. Got pretty deep into the math and theory when I was younger but saw no clear path forward so I moved on.
QuoteThis is still happening today, e.g.:
We can precisely describe mathematically how the force between two permanent magnets depends on the magnetic flux density gradient (we can even build machines based on this mathematical relationship), but most scientisct cannot conceptually define magnetic flux any more than the mechanism of that force.
Agree and this relates to why I could not find a path forward using conventional physics. The problem I found was that in the rush to reduce everything to a few universal equations all the details were lost. Faraday, in his early lectures, touched on why reduction and generalization are problematic.
The problem is easy to understand and I had the same problem when rendering CFD models for gas and wind turbines 20 years ago. At low resolution/low detail I could render a basic model in a few hours. Double the resolution/detail and it takes 3 years to render the model. This led me to the realization that people and computers at present do not have the capacity to understand how all the little parts interact together in the big picture.
You nailed it down in your post imo. We can describe a physical magnet, we can describe the direction of forces however what actually happens within and in between the magnets eludes us. So I started building my own equipment and instruments to find the missing details. For example, an electric current and its associated magnetic field cannot move in straight lines when unconstrained. Which may explain why the shortest path between two points in nature is literally never a straight line. Yet almost everything we build and our systems are based on straight lines.
So I found FE is not so much a matter of violating any laws more so changing the rules. For example, everyone builds weak square houses but a dome or egg shaped house is magnitudes stronger. Square houses are literally designed to fail, found nowhere in nature... but we just keep building them. So our problem is not the laws of science it's mainly psychological where we reject all change and new ideas.
AC
The Bedini guy again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vkOz2eUMq8
...
Spot on analysis Void.
Do you have a way to send him a message with a link (YT does not allow links) ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.09.02, 10:09:02
Spot on analysis Void.
Do you have a way to send him a message with a link (YT does not allow links) ?
Hi Verpies. I'll msg you his contact info. Spencer has publicly posted his contact info, but I will msg it to you (assuming I can figure out how to send a PM here) in case he decides to take down his contact info at some point.
On Bedini pulse motors, I think Spencer Frame is further ahead than most. However I have yet to see or hear of a credible replication based on the build criteria claimed by Bedini and other inventors.
In my opinion all the fake Bedini replications are similar to the fake Adams motor builds which are nothing like what Adams described and patented. It's weird and I can't understand why people cannot seem to read basic instructions. Any person with even a marginal intelligence could research all of Adams original literature and patents then build a valid replication but for some reason they choose not to. They always change the build and fail to get positive results.
First, the odds of anyone succeeding with electronic switching are basically zero. If you use LV electronic switching there is a 99% chance your wasting your time. All these FE inventors like Bedini and Adams started with mechanical switching for a reason. The first clue should have been that most successful FE devices all used spark gaps in the system. So were talking about a working voltage of 3 to 5 kV minimum. Which makes perfect sense because all the amateurs who failed are afraid of anything over 120V and 5kV is out of the question.
As such I reject the validity and data from all the fake Bedini and Adams motor replications I have seen to date. They are not accurate replications and basically a waste of time. It also begs the question why anyone would choose the Bedini motor over an Adams motor. Adams was light years ahead of Bedini, documented most of his work and patented a supposedly working device.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.02, 15:04:04
As such I reject the validity and data from all the fake Bedini and Adams motor replications I have seen to date. They are not accurate replications and basically a waste of time. It also begs the question why anyone would choose the Bedini motor over an Adams motor. Adams was light years ahead of Bedini, documented most of his work and patented a supposedly working device.
Disappointed you feel like that. Fake? How so. People are trying to learn, they might not understand all the ideas, but will still build in order to have conversations on forums just like this - I'm the same.
But you're being a little too dismissive. Got something running yourself? I sure have...
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.02, 15:04:04
All these FE inventors like Bedini and Adams started with mechanical switching for a reason. The first clue should have been that most successful FE devices all used spark gaps in the system. So were talking about a working voltage of 3 to 5 kV minimum.
Why is mechanical switching superior in this application ?
Why is high voltage desirable ?
P.S.
I also think that the Adams' motor is more complex than Bedini's because it involves the mechanical attraction of a soft ferromagnetic member and the resulting dynamic change in inductance of the coils. I once wrote something about this here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43698#msg43698).
Verpies
QuoteWhy is mechanical switching superior in this application ?
Why is high voltage desirable ?
If we look at the majority of all FE patents they used arcing mechanical switches or spark gaps. This implies HV transient effects must be related to the effect in question. Confirmed by the fact all the low voltage replications don't seem to work.
QuoteP.S.
I also think that the Adams' motor is more complex than Bedini's because it involves the mechanical attraction of a soft ferromagnetic member and the resulting dynamic change in inductance of the coils. I once wrote something about this here.
Adams also built and patented a PM motor generator with a mechanical commutator shown below.
I agree with your basic analysis of an ordinary ferromagnetic core pulse motor and came to similar conclusions. I went further using input/output capacitors, voltage, current and field sensors tied to a microcomputer to continually monitor the variables and COP in real time. I seldom use a DMM or DSO which are primitive and prefer to build my own equipment. For example, my system progressively changes the system variables while monitoring and analyzing the field changes and COP.
Suppose you wanted to test an Adams motor setup and continually change the voltage, current, pulse frequency and width. Suppose each variable can only have a small number of possible values say 1 to 1001. The total number of possible combinations is 1,000,000,000,000 and at 1 test per minute it would take about 1.9 million years to complete the 1 trillion tests. At one test per second 31,688 years. So my perspective of "testing something" is quite different than most.
I hope this gives you some insight into what your actually up against. Even if one could build an exact physical replication of a device which is debatable the possible system variables are still magnitudes more difficult. Aren't you the math person?... have you run the numbers of what the odds of building an exact replication are?.
AC
For those interested in ferromagnetic core pulse motors they are called a switched reluctance motor (SRM) and can also act as generators.
The SRM concept is based on a coil/core attracting a piece of laminated steel. In an SRM the piece of steel just so happens to move in a circle we call a rotor. I built and tested piston/solenoid type motors and rotating ones. There are FE claims on both solenoid and rotating type reluctance motors. Like many FE technologies many started with solenoid motors then progressed to higher speed rotary versions so we can assume the working principal remained the same.
Which is interesting because a solenoid motor is a very basic testing platform anyone can build because a crankshaft is optional. My first version only had four basic parts with a spring above and below an iron slug inside a solenoid coil. An oscillating motor if you will.
Suppose the coil was wound near the top of the solenoid former. When the slug is attracted to the energized coil and moves upward this is a motor action. If we then quickly switched the coil from the source battery to a capacitor as the still magnetized slug moved back downward this produces a generator action. Again, the SRM rotor simply moves the iron slug in a circle nothing more. The motor/generator action remains.
I also tested a solenoid shaded pole variation. Here we simply wrap a heavy shorted coil around the iron slug. This tends to oppose a magnetic field change in the core. The shaded pole motor and induction motors are based on this principal using heavy shorted coils. If we add a diode to the heavy shorted coil the magnetic field opposition only happens during either the motor or generator function. Now were getting into logic gate territory. X can happen during A AND B, A OR B maybe a variation of other gating actions if the diode is replaced by a threshold device.
I also tried modifying the inertia of the iron slug using another mass within a cavity inside the iron slug. Suppose we had a spring at the bottom inside the slug cavity. Now when the slug moves upward the internal mass is displaced downward. The internal mass delay tends to make the motor action faster and the generator action slower. Here we are only limited by our imagination and there are countless ways we could modify the system.
So this notion that things need always act the same based on our casual observations is obviously not true. Any system can be changed in any number of ways.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.03, 17:59:49
... There are FE claims on both solenoid and rotating type reluctance motors. Like many FE technologies...
FE technologies do not exist. Not even one. If they did, we would not be here talking about them; they would be powering our homes.
Since no new energy source is involved in what you have described to us, and since everything you have described can be modelled by a Lagrangian, which is logically equivalent to descriptions by forces, your systems cannot produce extra energy. The conclusion is purely logical.
And since your speech is not accompanied by a description of a measurement protocol and data that would cast doubt on the theory or suggest that an unknown energy source is at work, because experiment takes precedence over theory, it serves no purpose. Absolutely none. It's just childish babble to amuse oneself, reinforce one's faith in utopias, and prevent experimenters from moving forward by diverting them to stories of yesterday's "technologies" that never worked.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.09.03, 21:06:04
FE technologies do not exist. Not even one.
But you cannot prove that because the lack of proof of existence is not a proof for nonexistence. That's pure logic for you.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.09.03, 21:06:04
If they did, we would not be here talking about them; they would be powering our homes.
That's not an argument because open-sourcing is not guaranteed to happen. I think that human greed and fear of the establishment leads rather to the opposite behavior.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.09.03, 21:06:04
Since no new energy source is involved in what you have described to us, and since everything you have described can be modeled by a Lagrangian, which is logically equivalent to descriptions by forces, your systems cannot produce extra energy. The conclusion is purely logical.
Only, if the forces are conservative. The HV gas discharge across electrodes composed of various materials is a system of so many variables that it would be arrogant to claim its total calculability.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.09.03, 21:06:04It's just childish babble to amuse oneself, reinforce one's faith in utopias, and prevent experimenters from moving forward by diverting them to stories of yesterday's "technologies" that never worked.
That was uncalled for. Playing a mindreader and a psychologist is a slippery slope. It's not exactly hard science - you know.
Yesterday's technologies like the Adams' motor can be very educational for beginners. For example if non-laminated steel (nor ferrite) is used then the coil may actually repel the steel member when dΦ/dt is fast enough.
I actually used this effect to impart an extra kinetic energy to a solid steel projectile in my coil-gun (https://youtu.be/id90kjYh-Qw). (a chopped up nail segment without the head because it's cheap and available).
There is much evidence that electrons are real particles having three known characteristics, mass, electric charge and spin. The so-called spin is a magnetic dipole moment of magnitude the Bohr magneton. If you have an electron gas with all the spin vectors aligned, within a magnetic field that is parallel to the spin vectors, and the field magnitude has a gradient at right angles to that vector direction (the least complex case of a vector field with Curl), all the electrons are attracted towards the stronger field. The electron movement is current, the force on an electron relates to an effective electric field so that region of space would appear to have a ratio of voltage to current that is negative resistance. This leads to the prospect of an electrically connected positive resistance in some other region of space receiving some energy. When this is analysed to discover the source of that energy, by modelling the electron dipoles as tiny current loops it is found that the voltage induced into each loop from the increasing magnetic field acts on the current to exactly account for the output energy. IMO this can't be coincidence.
The analysis is straightforward and doesn't use dubious math. The only contentious issue is the magnetic field passing through the electron particle doing that thing, opposing whatever is driving the spin. I am much taken with this concept of electrons as quantum dynamos. Of all the folk law devices in the FE community that F6LT rubbishes there is one that he thinks may be real, and that is the Unruh/Coler stromerzeuger. Now there is clear evidence that this used electric current injected into high purity Fe rods via permanent magnets, such spin injection being the only aspect of this complex circuit that is unconventional.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.09.05, 10:28:25
There is much evidence that electrons are real particles having three known characteristics, mass, electric charge and spin. The so-called spin is a magnetic dipole moment of magnitude the Bohr magneton. If you have an electron gas with all the spin vectors aligned, within a magnetic field that is parallel to the spin vectors, and the field magnitude has a gradient at right angles to that vector direction (the least complex case of a vector field with Curl), all the electrons are attracted towards the stronger field. The electron movement is current, the force on an electron relates to an effective electric field so that region of space would appear to have a ratio of voltage to current that is negative resistance. This leads to the prospect of an electrically connected positive resistance in some other region of space receiving some energy. When this is analysed to discover the source of that energy, by modelling the electron dipoles as tiny current loops it is found that the voltage induced into each loop from the increasing magnetic field acts on the current to exactly account for the output energy. IMO this can't be coincidence.
The analysis is straightforward and doesn't use dubious math. The only contentious issue is the magnetic field passing through the electron particle doing that thing, opposing whatever is driving the spin. I am much taken with this concept of electrons as quantum dynamos. Of all the folk law devices in the FE community that F6LT rubbishes there is one that he thinks may be real, and that is the Unruh/Coler stromerzeuger. Now there is clear evidence that this used electric current injected into high purity Fe rods via permanent magnets, such spin injection being the only aspect of this complex circuit that is unconventional.
Smudge
The most interesting part of the spin of an electron is that a a spin-½ particle doesn't come back to the same quantum state after a 360° turn. Instead, you need a 720° rotation for the wavefunction to return to itself. it's like a Möbius strip turn it once and you're not back to the start, only after two full turns.
Smudge
QuoteThere is much evidence that electrons are real particles having three known characteristics, mass, electric charge and spin.
When I think of particles like the electron-proton and forces I always remember a quote in A.D.Moore's book on electrostatics burned into my mind. Moore claimed, if we have a 1 cm cube of aluminum and separate all the positive and negative charges 1 m apart the forces pulling them back together is about 14 quadrillion metric tons of force or 14,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Verified using an AI. It's almost obscene isn't it?, I mean the known forces within matter are beyond 99% of peoples imagination.
Even more mind boggling Moore calculated the forces explained above were equivalent to the weight exerted by a steel cube 76 miles in length, width and height. Ergo, at 76 mph it would take you one hour to drive the length of any side of said cube...
Of course, as Moore said, force is not energy, however it gives us a good indication of how much energy is required to change the charge density in a material or area. So this notion that it doesn't take much energy to move or separate large numbers of charges seems absurd. We have evidence of what happens when these internal forces in matter acting over a distance are released... we call it fission (nuclear energy) and fusion.
So it should be obvious we do not have an energy problem. What we have is a lack of knowledge and understanding problem.
Not reflecting on you of course, your pretty cool and very intelligent, more so at the insanity machine our society has become... basically it's Friday.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.06, 01:15:20
Moore claimed, if we have a 1 cm cube of aluminum and separate all the positive and negative charges 1 m apart the forces pulling them back together is about 14 quadrillion metric tons of force or 14,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
In this case, is it possible to increase the pressure of the gas in a closed volume by giving it a charge? ;)
Quote from: broli on 2025.09.05, 14:39:05
The most interesting part of the spin of an electron is that a a spin-½ particle doesn't come back to the same quantum state after a 360° turn. Instead, you need a 720° rotation for the wavefunction to return to itself. it's like a Möbius strip turn it once and you're not back to the start, only after two full turns.
Yes and I'd like you to notice that this is 2-dimensional rotation.
chief kolbacict
QuoteIn this case, is it possible to increase the pressure of the gas in a closed volume by giving it a charge?
Yes, in fact I replicated Nikola Tesla's means for evacuating discharge tubes. It was relatively easy and the problem was many forget we live in the real world not an imaginary mathematical construct.
You see, in the "real world" the stuff in our tube, air, can contain large amounts of water vapor we call relative humidity. So when very HF/HV impulses are applied across the tube the molecules of water vapor tend to repel one another and carry a certain amount of air with them out of the tube creating a vacuum. The tube end is then sealed and we have a vacuum tube. In the real world nothing is ideal and things get messy.
It's strange how something so simple could elude so many people.
AC
I'm not Tesla. I didn't succeed. :-X
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.08, 17:09:24
So when very HF/HV impulses are applied across the tube the molecules of water vapor tend to repel one another and carry a certain amount of air with them out of the tube creating a vacuum. The tube end is then sealed and we have a vacuum tube.
Excellent!
You measured the residual vacuum pressure in your manufactured tube?
Sergh
QuoteExcellent!
You measured the residual vacuum pressure in your manufactured tube?
Yes, using Paschen's law and measuring the breakdown voltage for air across the tube electrodes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtaA5NxvnRY
The Bedini guy's update.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.08.13, 21:24:15
ChetI think the majority agree that if there is an energy gain then the energy must come from somewhere. The problem seems to come from the terminology and how it's interpreted. Some claim free energy relates to a perpetual motion machine not energy which is inherently free. Some claim a device is OU but also claim the energy must come from somewhere. Some claim there is no such thing as perpetual motion even though most physicists more so astrophysicists consider it a known fact.
I was under the impression this was the way of the world more so in places like America. The rich and powerful are always playing god with those less fortunate than themselves aren't they?. How do you think so many people got so stinking rich and powerful?, it wasn't by being charitable. I mean, logically if they were actually charitable they would have given much of there wealth to those less fortunate but obviously they didn't hence the reason they are so wealthy.
JimbootCertainly, Nelson Rocha has working tech because I replicated it and I believe Centraflow does as well. I wanted to get involved in Mikes tech and help out but it's really complicated and time consuming as Mike would probably agree. The timing, energy levels and geometry are beyond most persons capability but Mike makes it look easy. I have talked with Mike and he is a brilliant man who works harder than anyone I know to make progress.
AC
Centraflow certainly does and unusually mathematically sorted - very elegantly too. To expand on folks not comprehending energy transition or more succinctly where that unknown source is (and where the suppression there of comes from) there's little better example than this (I have copied this to rumble as YouTube scrubs it so you'll only find a curtailed version there, and Bitchute ? well UK readers can't see that due to present free speech and censorship regulations without a VPN or Brave Browser https://brave.com/ (https://brave.com/)
https://rumble.com/v6z61hi-the-trompe.html (https://rumble.com/v6z61hi-the-trompe.html)
Its important to comprehend that although a drop in water is required for this operation it is not consumed -- As Bill Mollison explains the system can be used time and time again on the same river I Quote ("Trompe Trompe Trompe") or even utilising one hole again I quote ("down in a pipe up though the well")
well AC asked for 'easy' I suggest it doesn't get much easier than a hole and a pipe.
you might wonder if it has been used in multi meg watt generation projects, full credit to A.C's Canadian compatriot Charles Taylor - yes it has
https://youtu.be/Jq2vzwopkpk (https://youtu.be/Jq2vzwopkpk)
surly everyone on this forum knows that abundant free clean energy isn't on the present powers that ( should not be) agenda or narrative
my kind regards to you Duncan
Thanks Duncan, that was an interesting video.
Quoteyou might wonder if it has been used in multi meg watt generation projects, full credit to A.C's Canadian compatriot Charles Taylor - yes it has
https://youtu.be/Jq2vzwopkpk
I tested the trompe and the bubble jet/air lift pump which are very similar. As well as the ram pump and the Bellocq Wave Pump. The wave pump is a spin off of the inertia pump imo.
I was also working on Viktor Schaubergers dynamic hydro turbine for a while.
http://history.hasslberger.com/tecno/tecno_2.htm
Really interesting stuff.
forgot you enjoy video's A.C I've just potentially sent you a bucket load you might enjoy check your pm box
Kind regards Duncan
The Bedini guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pd0czx7X0Q&t=528s
He claims: The results become increasingly interesting as the batteries condition over repeated cycles, eventually showing higher resting voltages while substantially more energy is removed from the battery than supplied by the charging system. In short COP >2
Just saying.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2026.05.25, 00:33:36
The Bedini guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pd0czx7X0Q&t=528s
He claims: The results become increasingly interesting as the batteries condition over repeated cycles, eventually showing higher resting voltages while substantially more energy is removed from the battery than supplied by the charging system. In short COP >2
Just saying.
I don't believe anything where batteries are involved. The chemical behaviour and the resulting apparent voltages are uncertain and can falsely produce energy gains.
Ask him to use supercaps.
Quote from: Frederik2k1 on 2026.05.25, 21:17:29
I don't believe anything where batteries are involved. The chemical behaviour and the resulting apparent voltages are uncertain and can falsely produce energy gains.
Ask him to use supercaps.
I concur.
Also, I have not seen a schematic of the measurement setup (incl. probe positions).
Quote from: Frederik2k1 on 2026.05.25, 21:17:29
I don't believe anything where batteries are involved. The chemical behaviour and the resulting apparent voltages are uncertain and can falsely produce energy gains.
Ask him to use supercaps.
I used to think this was true but changed my mind.
The problem is when people use very large batteries with devices having small currents. If we use smaller batteries with less capacity it can easily show the actual COP. For example, if a device uses one 18650 battery but outputs a continuous power of 500w indefinitely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on.
The Bedini guy Q and A: Again, OU is claimed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEY6UPyBvrQ&t=677s
He claims MetGlass cores.
Duck's guts...
MetGlass has the resistivity of ~130 µΩ·cm which is 2.8× larger than silicon steel's.
This, combined with low hysteresis loss makes MetGlass ¹⁄₅ less lossy (@no-load) than silicon steel in low frequency applications.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2026.06.08, 17:19:31
The Bedini guy Q and A: Again, OU is claimed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEY6UPyBvrQ&t=677s
What value does he claim for OU?
Do you know of a circuit diagram?
Quote from: Frederik2k1 on 2026.06.09, 07:12:06
What value does he claim for OU?
Do you know of a circuit diagram?
Check out my previous post, he goes into details there.
And you didn't believe me. :)
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.06.20, 09:38:44
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4703.0;attach=56478)
I like this mechanism.
Am I correct in assuming that the large white rotating ring has ferromagnetic members embedded in it ?
...and the 3 white tubes contain coils ?
Many, many, years back, the now late technician Baumgartner built a hover craft with new tech. Round plywood board with center hole. flexible flap all around. He used a toy train motor and rewired it from parallel coils to series coils for more speed. He made a turbine, just like the inside of a washing machine. He was deriving the secret of nature! The fibonacci spiral . Power where the tornado gets it from nature. He used computer program to get proper. dimensions . The unit will lift most anything. Central canister with brackets held the parts. Vortex swirl air high rpm. They also lifted up the front end of city bus. ( not talking about plain air pressure- ETHER ENERGY) I had the 2 full page article years ago, but misplaced. The alternate energy magazine shut down. Was $60 subscription Also told secret process to make gold from lead with plasma frequency applied. Water to steam with Tesla coil runs engine on Hydrogen gas derived,- The Hefferlin Manuscript also found in Amazing Stories Magazine Sept 1946, or on Internet, etc. I thought it might be related.
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.06.20, 13:37:46
I like this mechanism.
Am I correct in assuming that the large white rotating ring has ferromagnetic members embedded in it ?
...and the 3 white tubes contain coils ?
Yes. That's it. There's no internet, dammit. >:-)
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.06.28, 11:58:01
There's no internet, dammit. >:-)
Is it because of that damned war or is it always like this in your area ?
What are your optimal energization angles and pulse widths ?
Are you doing any energy recovery once the ferromagnetic member gets completely attracted inside the coil ?
Are your ferromagnetic members soft or hard (magnetically) ?
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.06.28, 12:48:54
Are your ferromagnetic members soft or hard (magnetically) ?
Photo of the finished device, unfortunately not mine. This is a device by a certain Klesov.
I was only going to make it to check the effect of magnetic circuit rotation.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.07.04, 07:36:31
...This is a device by a certain Klesov.
I was only going to make it to check the effect of magnetic circuit rotation.
It looks like a device for experimenting the principle of a magnetic diode. Is the large rotating ring ferromagnetic? Where can I find the source for this device?
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.06.28, 12:48:54
Is it because of that damned war ?
I think yes.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.07.16, 15:34:01Where can I find the source for this device?
I will try to find materials on Klesov. :)