OverUnity Research

Getting tired of the monotonous, repetitive BS out there.
Ask an intelligent question, rub the eight ball and thou might receive knowledge...

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.07.29, 22:32:51
Getting tired of the monotonous, repetitive BS out there.
Ask an intelligent question, rub the eight ball and thou might receive knowledge...

AC

I'll bite.  It seems you have some experience with this square wave phenomena as your exchanges with Erfinder go back many years and you talk like you know.  How is it that the inductor begins to behave as an "infinitely variable capacitance" (per Erfinder) when you get the square wave phenomena?  What are the features of this?

Dave

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities". This is why those who believe they know more than physicists, without knowing anything about physics except trivialities, see free energy as easy to obtain, and claim to teach us from the height of their incompetence with foolish recipes, without ever providing it themselves, of course.

Discussions between experimenters are rare, but lessons in free energy are a daily occurrence. We don't have free energy, otherwise we wouldn't be here looking for it. It is obviously because it is difficult, or perhaps even impossible, that we do not already have it. Only when everyone has seen that we have it will it become a science, that is to say, real teachable knowledge. Until that moment, we only need hypotheses and operational tests, no need for free energy teachers who talk for the sake of talking, unaware of their level of incompetence, craving recognition, and too full of themselves.
Having answers as intelligent and operational as questions you ask is unfortunately a challenge.  ;)

I don't know anything much about these guys (Quantum Energy Corporation), but they appear to have a magnetic engine/generator which from what I can gather runs continuously and they claim it is powering part of their building.
As of two years ago they were saying anyone could go to their company and get a tour of their motor generators so people can see them for them self in person.
Not sure if they are still offering that and what the latest is with this company.

"Magnet Drive - Zero Contact - 4,000 Pounds!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvZTomsskJo

"Only the Force of a Magnet: Watch a 1200 Pound Flywheel Spin with only Magnets!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQExrZQWGw8

It looks like they just lift the 'drive' magnet out of the way when it reaches what they call the 'entropy point' on the magnet covered flywheel.
They keep the arrangement of the stator magnets on the flywheel secret.
They also talk about both photon and magnet engines.
Anyone know more about this company?

Very familiar presenter from a previous ( similar heavy flywheel) arrangement years ago ..
Las Vegas demonstration in a gun store parking lot ?( if I remember correctly)

Much litigation ( leading to funds returned or ?

"earth engine "

Some members at Stefan's did a history of presenter and previous financial endeavors ...
All seemed to lead to issues!

Quote from: Chet K on 2025.08.12, 23:13:56
Very familiar presenter from a previous ( similar heavy flywheel) arrangement years ago ..

Hi Chet. Yes, seems to be the same guy. His name is 'Dennis M. Danzik'.
When I searched on that name, I found a webpage that had some info about him and it mentioned the "Earth Engine' on that webpage as well.

One webpage said this about him:
"Dennis M. Danzik currently works at flooidCX Corp., as President, CEO, CFO, Secretary & Director from 2022, The Institute of Industrial & Systems Engineers, Inc., as Senior Member, The Society of Plastics Engineers, as Senior Member, Danzik Applied Sciences LLC, as Managing Member from 2007, and MIT Sloan Boston Alumni Association, as Member.
Mr. Danzik also formerly worked at SWW Energy Ltd., as Chief Executive Officer in 2009, RDX Technologies Corp., as Chief Executive Officer & Director from 2013 to 2014, and Aristos International, Inc., as President, Chief Executive Officer & Director.
Mr. Danzik received his undergraduate degree and graduate degree from MIT Sloan School of Management.
https://ca.marketscreener.com/insider/DENNIS-DANZIK-A0R1RX/

Another webpage says this:
"Dennis M. Danzik
Engineering/Science Division
Dennis Danzik's 33 year career as an engineering professional in the U.S. and 14 foreign countries includes vetting and economic target development for well over 500 products in the U.S. A., Australia, New Zealand, Poland, United Kingdom, Israel, Egypt, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Philippines, Japan, Canada, Mexico and others.
Mr. Danzik works under contract on an exclusive basis within the science of Magnetic Propulsion, and works in product development and as an advisor to the executive team and board of directors.
Mr. Danzik holds degrees in industrial engineering and mathematics. Dennis completed his graduate work in product development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School (2009). Mr. Danzik completed a fellowship in engineering at the University of Exeter in 1998. He holds status as a registered member of the National Society of Professional Engineers, ASTM, and the Institute of Industrial Engineers, and holds patents in six fields of polymer processing and material science.
Mr. Danzik is currently a student of Physiology and Radiology (magnetic resonance) at the Harvard Medical School."
https://ie.energy/about/OFFLINE-index.html

Reached out for someone who has more information ( the "other" information regarding past business venture "issues" )
Probably won't hear back until tomorrow ...

Quote from: Chet K on 2025.08.13, 01:29:45
Reached out for someone who has more information ( the "other" information regarding past business venture "issues" )
Probably won't hear back until tomorrow ...

Yes, there are definitely some red flags there at any rate.
They supposedly have a major breakthrough technology fuelless magnet generator system, but seems nothing very much has been going on with this company in the last couple of years.
You'd think they'd have people from MIT or similar come in and validate their technology, or have their magnet generators installed at some major companies as test trials for validation.
Their website has web pages that say things like 'under construction', and their company stock FLCX seems to be currently valued at $0.00.  :)
AS mentioned previously, one website stated this: "Mr. Danzik is currently a student of Physiology and Radiology (magnetic resonance) at the Harvard Medical School."
Seemingly not making much sense.  :) Maybe the company has folded. Not sure.

I had some hopes for the 'Infinity Sav' generator folks some years ago, but they appear to have shut right down after the main guy Andrii Slobodian died in 2020.
Not looking so good for the prospects of getting a free energy generator on the market any time soon.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.07.29, 22:32:51
Getting tired of the monotonous, repetitive BS out there.
Ask an intelligent question, rub the eight ball and thou might receive knowledge...
AC

Most people these days have been around the block more than once when it comes to free energy claims.
If someone can show a clear and straightforward demonstration of a free energy device, I might possibly have some questions.
No clear demonstrations, then it really is only just talk.

I was looking for smoke and mirrors but all I see are mirrors.

I know where to get my 9v batteries charged at least.

Void

QuoteMost people these days have been around the block more than once when it comes to free energy claims.
If someone can show a clear and straightforward demonstration of a free energy device, I might possibly have some questions.
No clear demonstrations, then it really is only just talk.

On proof, FE energy is like any other state of the art technology nobody can understand or build. Maybe you could send a letter to Putin saying if he doesn't send you the plans to the Russian 800 mph torpedo or hypersonic cruise missile you can't believe it's possible?. How do you think that would turn out?. The unfortunate truth is the people who know stuff have little obligation to tell you anything more so a business or government. You seem a little naive imo.

The question I had to ask myself and most should too is this. What makes you think you have what it takes to reproduce this or any other state of the art technology?. They say it takes 10K hours to become an expert in any given field. However by my guesstimate I had over 25K hours into it before I even scratched the surface. It makes sense, 10K hours only applies to textbook knowledge already known. Any fool can pick up a textbook and try to memorize something but what if there were no textbook?. Well that's a completely different story isn't it because now there is nobody there to hold our hand and it's all on us.

So "around the block" is relative, how big is your block?. T.H.Moray and Nikola Tesla supposedly spent over 30 years researching and developing one FE technology. I know zero people who have even a fraction of that kind of dedication to a cause. Most are weekend warriors, try some misguided inaccurate experiments, fail miserably, then try to blame others for their own lack of results. It's weird, the moment I started taking responsibility for my own actions is the moment I started having positive results. Not sure why but there seems to be something to it.

AC

", ask an intelligent question..."

There you go:
Why is mass a volume of energy ?

Verpies

QuoteThere you go:
Why is mass a volume of energy ?

I checked with an AI and it disagrees with the statement but I don't.

I use key words, Mass-Volume-Energy and it works. Mass is a three dimensional volume of mobile charge carriers which represents energy. The energy is not in the mass per say but in the kinetic energy of the particles/charge carriers/fields which make up the mass. We could go deeper but there is really no need to add extra complexity.

I found no matter how deep we go energy is always kinetic in it's nature. For example, there is no such thing as chemical energy. The supposed chemical bonding/energy is electrical and magnetic on the particle/field level. No such thing as heat, it's just a measure of how fast the atoms are jiggling which is kinetic in nature. We could literally dispense with most of the outdated terminology and simply describe the kind of motion and on what level it takes place.

I think this is where Einstein, Feynman and many others were heading. The problem seems to be our language and perspective limiting our progress. It's not math or equations which are too generalized, averaged and lack detail. I would think the language would have to be symbolic visualizing the object and it's particle/field interactions from the outside inward. This is our object, moving inward, this is how it works. Of course, this kind of visual language is well beyond our mental capacity at the moment.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.08.29, 15:34:29
I checked with an AI and it disagrees with the statement but I don't.

I use key words, Mass-Volume-Energy and it works. Mass is a three dimensional volume of mobile charge carriers which represents energy. The energy is not in the mass per say but in the kinetic energy of the particles/charge carriers/fields which make up the mass.

It can be proven mathematically through dimensional analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis) that:

a Kilogram = k * Joule³,

where k is a dimensionless constant equal to 1.469944166×10¹⁸

...or for out Imperial friends that:
a Pound = k' * BTU³,

where k' is a dimensionless constant equal to some other number.


...all without invoking the auxiliary concepts of particles, quarks, charge carriers, fields and without invoking the "fundamental" (sic!) forces that keep mass (nuclei and molecules) concentrated in space.

It can also be proven mathematically through dimensional analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis) that:

speed = meters / second
and...
Joule = k * (seconds / meter)

where k is a dimensionless constant equal to 4.9032×10⁹

...or for our Imperial friends, that:

speed = miles / hour
and...
BTU = k' * (hours / mile)

where k' is a dimensionless constant equal to some other number.

Verpies

QuoteIt can be proven mathematically through dimensional analysis that:
a Kilogram = k * Joule3,
where k is a dimensionless constant equal to 1.469944166×1018

I'm sure it can however when I look at most math and equations I don't see anything. It's like saying water is wet and gives no more insight into a problem.

However when I hear "Mass is a three dimensional volume of mobile charge carriers which represents energy. The energy is in the kinetic energy of the particles/charge carriers/fields" I can imagine countless ways to apply this concept. The idea is everything. One can know any number of specific details but if it does not lead to an idea or application it is basically meaningless, imo.

Here it helps to be goal oriented. My goal is not to follow other people and their beliefs or opinions. My goal is to understand and apply what I learn. So if what I hear and see does not move the ball forward I look elsewhere. However many who have claimed to have no positive results would have us believe their way is the only way. Which to a goal/results oriented person seems absurd. There is only one right way, it is the way which produces a positive result.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.08.30, 15:25:50
I'm sure it can however when I look at most math and equations I don't see anything.

I understand. Every person has their preferred channel of communication and equations are just not something that speaks to you.

Despite that, I'd like you to notice that the space-time units of energy are equivalent to inverse speed (i.e.: second / meter ...or time / space).
Inverse speed does not make much sense in a stationary reference system (frame of refrence), but it makes a lot of sense in a reference system that is expanding (akin to galaxies expanding on the sky's map).
In an expanding reference system, inverse speed refers to motion that opposes this expansion.
This opposition generates our daily Euclidean stationary reference system when the opposition takes place in three dimensions and is complete, as it does with mass or matter [time/space]³.

Canceling one dimension of this material opposition results in momentum which units are [time/space]².
Canceling two dimensions of this material opposition results in energy which units are [time/space].

Verpies
Generally speaking I do not use this kind of reasoning and tend to be a realist or naturalist.

I found Einstein and many others made some basic mistakes. Einstein was clever and he created a lot of questionable theories by working around the problem, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.". As a realist I don't "change facts" I try to understand them. Even Einstein in his later years agreed his theory of space time was unworkable. Of course this was only after he became very famous and wealthy. Weird how many people tend to change their mind after they become wealthy and beyond reproach but seldom before.

In my opinion space-time was created because nobody could figure out why their clocks slowed down and sped up. So rather than find the actual reason they supposed time had actually changed when it didn't (ie. Change the Facts). The logical reason for a false time is that the material which makes up the clock was effected in some way. Not this nonsense that time in itself (a measure of how fast a local system oscillates) has changed universally which doesn't hold water. 

In fact, I can change time as most see it and have manipulated wristwatches and clocks. You see the clock time cycle is solely dependent on the rate of oscillation of the material like a quartz crystal in an LC circuit. So changing the time is easy if we know how to produce impulses which can penetrate the clock enclosure and effect the crystal and LC circuit. As such it's easy to assume something similar could happen in atomic clocks as well. At which point the whole space-time theory tends to fall apart. The answer which relies on the least assumptions is usually the right one. Did the clock change or the whole universe?... the answer seems obvious to me.

Personally I think everyone jumped on the space-time bandwagon because they thought they could cheat reality and death. I mean the fantasy of cheating time is universal and we are only human.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.01, 16:03:58
...
I found Einstein and many others made some basic mistakes.
...

;D ;D ;D

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Quote attributed to Einstein.

Checked daily. Thanks ac.

Quote from: verpies on 2025.08.30, 23:46:21
...
In an expanding reference system, inverse speed refers to motion that opposes this expansion.
This opposition generates our daily Euclidean stationary reference system when the opposition takes place in three dimensions and is complete, as it does with mass or matter [time/space]³.

Canceling one dimension of this material opposition results in momentum which units are [time/space]².
Canceling two dimensions of this material opposition results in energy which units are [time/space].

In theory, but it is difficult to say for sure, as we do not know whether the chosen dimensions and M are truly independent of each other in an expanding universe (E -> ML^-2T^-2).

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.01, 16:03:58
Generally speaking I do not use this kind of reasoning and tend to be a realist or naturalist.

Looks like I have pushed past the boundaries that are comfortable to you, with my talk about geometric reference systems.
Unfortunately paradigm shifts must feel exactly like that.  ..and our physics is long overdue for a paradigm shift.

Think about what being a "realist" means.  How much of that has to do with your 5 senses and are these senses infallible ?
Do you think that the evolution by natural selection has shaped your senses to show you the full truth of reality, or has it shaped them to present a simplified picture of reality only sufficient to fulfill its goals?
In other words, does fitness beat truth ...or truth beats fitness in the evolution of organisms like you ?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.09.01, 20:56:44
(E -> ML^-2T^-2).

I prefer to use space (s) instead of length (L) making the E -> ML²T^-2 be written like t/s = (t³/s³)(s²/t²)
....but this is not the only equation from which the dimensions of mass can be derived, thus AC's objection to Einstein's work does not invalidate it, even if the objection is valid.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.09.01, 20:56:44
In theory, but it is difficult to say for sure, as we do not know whether the chosen dimensions and M are truly independent of each other in an expanding universe

Any kind of interdependence between variables disqualifies them as dimensions.
Geometric dimensions are canonically described as orthogonal not without a reason, that being complete independence from each other.

Anyway, take a while to muse about the possibility that the default state of space is its expansion at the speed of light and that matter is a three-dimensional opposition to that expansion.
I know this is hard to imagine.  The closest 2D analogy would be a water surface of this fountain (https://youtu.be/GJ6tFeJCg-0) and self-propelled dot of dust particles that move in such way on that sheet of water that they remain a concentrated dot.
Our Euclidean reference system appears stationary (non-expanding) because its origin is anchored to matter (translation notwithstanding) so we do not perceive this expansion unless we look far away through our telescopes.

Quote from: verpies on 2025.09.02, 00:07:47
...
Any kind of interdependence between variables disqualifies them as dimensions.
Geometric dimensions are canonically described as orthogonal not without a reason, that being complete independence from each other.

That is exactly the question I am raising. Given our ignorance of significant phenomena currently compensated for by the hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy, I am not sure that it is not the theory that needs to be revised instead, particularly its choice of "dimensions" because they would not be truly orthogonal.

Quote
Anyway, take a while to muse about the possibility that the default state of space is its expansion at the speed of light and that matter is a three-dimensional opposition to that expansion.
I know this is hard to imagine.  The closest 2D analogy would be a water surface of this fountain (https://youtu.be/GJ6tFeJCg-0) and self-propelled dot of dust particles that move in such way on that sheet of water that they remain a concentrated dot.
Our Euclidean reference system appears stationary (non-expanding) because its origin is anchored to matter (translation notwithstanding) so we do not perceive this expansion unless we look far away through our telescopes.

It is not so much imagining it that is difficult, but rather providing a minimum of mathematical formalism to model the idea, and supporting data.

.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.09.02, 17:15:03
It is not so much imagining it that is difficult, but rather providing a minimum of mathematical formalism to model the idea, and supporting data.

That puts me in a pickle because while you demand methematical formalism, AC prefers conceptual coherence and realism.

Let's see.  Every theory rest on a set of fundamental premises ...in my opinion then fewer - the better.  Below is my best attempt:
(x² + y² + z²)^½ / (t² + u² + v²)^½ = c
In English it would be something like:
1) Space and Time are two reciprocal aspects of motion, as in the well known relation speed=space/time.  More space per time is equivalent to less time per space and less space per time is equivalent to more time per space, when the speeds are being equal.

2) Each aspect of motion acts in its own geometric reference system. IOW: The spatial aspect of motion does not have direction in time, it takes place in a separate geometric reference system (x,y,x). Symmetrically, the temporal aspect of motion does not have direction in space, it takes place in a separate geometric reference system (t,u,v).

3) Only the speed of light is possible at Planck time scale (or Planck length scale). IOW:  If the temporal coordinate changes by one unit time, then the spatial coordinate must also change by one unit of space (in arbitrary direction). Symmetrically, if the spatial coordinate changes by one unit space then the temporal coordinate must also change by one unit of time (in arbitrary direction).  The pairing of a unit of space with a unit of time is called a unit of motion.  The probabilistic directions of either aspect give rise to quantum probabilities and are the source of indeterminism.  Notice that the equation (x² + y² + z²)^½ / (t² + u² + v²)^½ = c has solutions for many directions of either aspect.

4)  Speeds other than c are possible collectively over many units of motion, due to the directional freedom of each aspect of motion.  For example if over two units of motion the spatial aspect reverses direction but the temporal aspect does not, then this collective speed observed by the third unit of motion might look like zero speed when the spatial coordinates do not progress but the temporal coordinates do.

5) Multidimensional pseudoscalar progression is indistinguishable from scalar progression (per Geometric Algebra) and appears as one-dimensional progression to pseudoscalar observers.  This is the reason why the expansion of a proverbial balloon can be described by one number only despite that the balloon is expanding in three dimensions.

6) A unit of motion cannot observe itself but it can be observed by other units of motion.  Full motion relativity applies to these observations and is further extended by temporal relativity.  The latter give the appearance of spatial fields of forces through normalization.

7) The all familiar three-dimensional Euclidean reference system is a result of relating its origin to matter, not the the natural expanding reference system of the universe.

8 ) Matter is inverse three-dimensional motion that arrests the three-dimensional expansion of space while leaving the temporal expansion unimpeded.

9) Antimatter is three-dimensional motion that arrests the three-dimensional expansion of time while leaving the spatial expansion unimpeded.  This is the reason material observers do not encounter much antimatter,

10) Energy is one dimensional inverse speed imbalance. IOW: a motion that remains after two dimensions of the natural expansion have been cancelled. i.e. the photon.  Photons appear to move at the speed of the natural expansion (speed of light) with respect to the stationary Euclidean reference system because they participate in the motion of the expansion, while the Euclidean system - does not.

The list above started as a list of axioms but I see that it turned out to be a mixture of axioms and conclusions, so I'll stop now and wait if anyone is able to understand it as it is or the lack of comfort afforded by the the stationary Euclidean geometric reference system + 1 auxiliary time dimension (Minkowski's spacetime) is just too much for folks.

BTW: I eschew esoterica and I am not an esoteric scientist.

Verpies

QuoteLooks like I have pushed past the boundaries that are comfortable to you, with my talk about geometric reference systems.
Unfortunately paradigm shifts must feel exactly like that.  ..and our physics is long overdue for a paradigm shift.

Possibly, I used to be all in on your perspective but could never make any progress so I moved on. It's kind of like spending 8 hours setting up a CFD model, 8 hours of rendering only to confirm what I already knew intuitively. So I found different ways of learning what I needed to know. 

QuoteThink about what being a "realist" means.  How much of that has to do with your 5 senses and are these senses infallible ?
Do you think that the evolution by natural selection has shaped your senses to show you the full truth of reality, or has it shaped them to present a simplified picture of reality only sufficient to fulfill its goals?
In other words, does fitness beat truth ...or truth beats fitness in the evolution of organisms like you ?

By realist I mean critical thinking, first principals and accepting things for what they are in reality. In reality everything we know is a lie of sorts. For example, any object is only 1% matter and 99% fields and energy. Energy is not the problem, having the intelligence to access said energy is. So we need to be realistic and avoid generalizing.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.03, 04:36:40
Possibly, I used to be all in on your perspective but could never make any progress so I moved on.

Really?  You rigorously considered that the natural reference system of the physical universe is not stationary ?

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.03, 04:36:40
By realist I mean critical thinking, first principals and accepting things for what they are in reality.

There is nothing wrong with critical thinking.  I hope that this type of thinking also extends to force fields without a defined mechanism for their existence, particles like the proton and electron, virtual particles popping in and out of existence (sic!), electric charge, the so called fundamental forces and myriad of other mental crutches.

The current state of science requires us to take these ideas on faith, often misnaming them as "objects" while offering the well-defined relationships between them as mathematical evidence for their reality.
The example of two attracting currents (Ampere's forces) or two attracting permanent magnets are good examples how we can mathematically calculate these forces and relate them to auxiliary mental crutches like the magnetic flux density gradient, but not be able to define the mechanism of these forces.
The rejection of the stationary geometric reference system, as the reference system to which the physical universe actually conforms, offers a solution to this problem. It conceptualizes all matter as a multidimensional motions with very specific properties and all forces as relations between multidimensional motions.  It also does away with space as an object that can be e.g. bent/curved like a fabric (an idea that I find paricularly repugnant).  It is simpler and explains much more than anything we have now.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.03, 04:36:40
In reality everything we know is a lie of sorts.

What does that say about realists ;) ?
IMO the Minkowski's spacetime is a highly effective prison for our minds and it works so well because our senses support it at the first glance.
Hoffman calls it a "headset" and correctly notices that what our science to date has been studying the "headset" - not reality.
extra-headset objects such as the Amplituhedron predicts what we see inside the headset much better than any structure inside the headset.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.03, 04:36:40
For example, any object is only 1% matter and 99% fields and energy.

...also consider what percentage of that is not-space.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.03, 04:36:40
Energy is not the problem,

...but incorrectly defining energy is a big problem.
The discovery that energy is an inverse speed through dimensional analysis has paramount consequences, even more so than the discovery that matter is energy cubed.  The most immediate one is provoking the question "inverse with respect to what" ?
"Inverse speed" does not make much sense in a stationary reference system.  From the answer to this questions all kinds of conceptual solutions arise: explanation for the fundamental forces, the structure of the photon, proton, neutron, electron and the entire periodical table of elements and why currents and magnets attract, why antimatter is not ubiquitous (because it does not gravitate in space) the whole dark energy, dark matter catastrophe, and a whole lot more.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.03, 04:36:40
having the intelligence to access said energy is.
So we need to be realistic ...

What does that mean exactly ? 
Avoid the construction of theoretical frameworks altogether or limit them to the study of the "headset" only ?
IMO whatever explanation we come up with cannot conflict with our observations, but we must keep in mind that some, if not all, of our observations are the constructs of out Minkowski "headset" with a pinch of gravity. The rejection of the stationary reference system as the reference system to which the physical universe actually conforms does not conflict with our observations - it hive the reason for them, because our observations are based on the stationary system anchored to the inverse speed of matter, not on the expanding reference system.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.03, 04:36:40
and avoid generalizing.

Inductive reasoning, from the general to the specific is one of the paths to scientific discovery.
Deductive reasoning is the opposite ...and there are no other ways.

Verpies

QuoteReally?  You rigorously considered that the natural reference system of the physical universe is not stationary ?

It's intuitive that there is nothing in the universe that is truly "stationary". From the largest astronomical scales we have measured to the smallest quantum scales everything we see is in motion. The term stationary is only used by people who don't understand physics or nature imo.

QuoteEnergy is not the problem, having the intelligence to access said energy is. So we need to be realistic and avoid generalizing.

This comes from reading too much Einstein, Feynman and friends. As Feynman implied, we know a baseball sized chunk of matter and the space it occupies contains enough energy to basically vaporize the planet. The problem is building a small enough lever ie. efficient process to extract a majority of said energy. Currently we use a dirty and primitive system we call nuclear energy which can only extract a small fraction of the total energy present. Ergo, we lack the intelligence to extract more energy per unit of mass. The Kardashev Scale is telling because were still on the primate level.

QuoteInductive reasoning, from the general to the specific is one of the paths to scientific discovery.
Deductive reasoning is the opposite ...and there are no other ways.

I think I like you and I prefer probability vs certainty. Certainty is where learning goes to die imo.

QuoteThe rejection of the stationary geometric reference system, as the reference system to which the physical universe actually conforms, offers a solution to this problem. It conceptualizes all matter as a multidimensional motions with very specific properties and all forces as relations between multidimensional motions.  It also does away with space as an object that can be e.g. bent/curved like a fabric (an idea that I find paricularly repugnant).  It is simpler and explains much more than anything we have now.

I find this a very interesting concept more in line with my views. Space as a fabric to be bent and curved is absurd. I think it goes back to Einsteins failure to reconcile the clock problem ie. changing time which he later acknowledged. Rather than claim oscillations on the atomic level can change, not time rather time period of an oscillation, Einstein changed the facts and created the absurdity of variable time. I get it, it was the 1950's and they were not the sharpest crayons in the box relative to what we know at present.

This relates directly to the notion of other dimensions imo. Take a ball, we can see the ball, cause it to oscillate very fast and it disappears because our eyes cannot perceive that level of motion. Our measuring instruments tend to suffer the same defect. For example, our newest ultra high speed cameras can slow the speed of light to a crawl. In theory we could have any number of things present in our own "space" having a rate of oscillation on a completely different level unknown to us. 

Consider this, if we could negate the property of inertia we could accelerate at any rate. Said rate could render a craft immune to radar because we would travel a distance faster than the radar sweep and be rejected by the radar noise cancellation. We could travel at will undetected until we slowed and the radar sweep caught up and detected us. I think this concept also relates to the notion of other dimensions. Logically any time something moves faster than the range of the system designed to detect it said thing is undetectable. So it's not a physics problem per say it's a technology problem as most things are.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.04, 00:02:49
Verpies
It's intuitive that there is nothing in the universe that is truly "stationary". From the largest astronomical scales we have measured to the smallest quantum scales everything we see is in motion. The term stationary is only used by people who don't understand physics or nature imo.

When I wrote "stationary" I meant "non-expanding".
I posit to you that an expanding reference system is a different reference system to the one we are used to - the Euclidean reference system (ERS).

If you anchor the origin of the ERS to a piece of matter then another piece of matter can appear stationary albeit at different coordinates of this system.  That's translation, but it is translation still in the same reference system.  Of course mass can move along a line and that can slowly change its coordinates in the ERS, but that motion is vectorial, this means you can always find a point from which the mass gets farther away and another colinear point to which it gets closer at the same time.

However a pseudosalarly expanding multidimensional reference system is a reference system of a different type.  In such system every point gets farther away from all other points all the time. Only one dimension of this system can be expressed in the ERS and its incessant scaling can be easily mistaken for translation.
In the expanding system the photon is stationary and the mass is an inward motion which can be expressed as (time/space)³.

I will not use the word "stationary" when referring toe the ERS anymore.  I will use "non-expanding" instead.
Of course what is expanding, stationary and shrinking is a matter of a frame of reference. For example, from the photons' point of view, all matter is shrinking at the speed of light.  That is the 3D inverse speed in the (time/space)³ relation.

I have  been trying to follow this discussion ,
And then it seems someone else ( very recently)

Made a video!! ( Sabine who I really like)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR-1Jol_nUM
Maybe she watches here ;-)

Respectfully submitted
Chet

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.06.14, 01:43:09
Cool thread and I found many supposed "computer experts" have no idea what a logic gate is. Which is kind of like a chef having no idea what an oven or frying pan is.
This applies directly to free energy.

I have similar thoughts every time I use a "mental crutch" concept like: charge, charge carrier, flux, field, energy, particle, etc...

Verpies

QuoteI have similar thoughts every time I use a "mental crutch" concept like: charge, charge carrier, flux, field, energy, particle, etc..

I think it depends on how far one wants to go and how productive it is.

For example, I found using "charge, charge carrier, flux, field, energy, particle, etc.." is more than adequate for my work. Any deeper and it just confuses the issue and is a waste of time imo. Similar to setting up a CFD model for my wind turbine tests. I could waste days of time setting up and rendering a CFD model or just tape a few tufts to the blade and take a video. Yet many seem to want to make a mountain out of every mole hill.

Do we analyze everything to death or do we explore new ideas, find what works, learn from it and move on?.

I like the "roll around" method used by all the most brilliant inventors.
1)We develop or test a new idea.
2)Rather than dwelling on all the details day after day wasting time we stop and let it roll around our mind until something changes.
3)This allows our mind to compare all the new ideas and find common threads.
4)We then retest the newer idea and repeat.

This relates to the Feynman Technique.
-Identify the topic you want to learn
-Explain the topic as if teaching a sixth-grader
-Identify areas of improvement in your explanation
-Improve and optimize your explanation
-Repeat the steps until you've achieved mastery of the topic

This relates directly to what Einstein said... "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.20, 17:03:41
For example, I found using "charge, charge carrier, flux, field, energy, particle, etc.." is more than adequate for my work.

Oh, I am guilty of using these concepts myself on this forum.  Alas, without them I could not communicate with other members.
Nonetheless, every time I do that, I am acutely aware that they are merely conceptual crutches to cover up our lack of understanding of what we call "reality".

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.20, 17:03:41
This relates directly to what Einstein said... "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

I don't think Einstein said that (see the attachment).  But I do understand the sentiment behind this adage as I am a fan of simplicity myself.  I just think that multiplying fundamental/axiomatic concepts, which are necessary to explain reality, is not a step in this direction.

Anyway, the lack of comprehension is not necessarily an indicator of complication.  It can be merely an indication of a reaction to the unfamiliar.

IMO energy as the ratio of t/s and mass as the ratio of t³/s³ looks much simpler to me than anything we have now (i.e. two standalone concepts instead of composite concepts derived from simpler foundations/axioms).

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.20, 17:03:41
Any deeper and it just confuses the issue and is a waste of time imo.

I, on the other hand, cannot find comfort in ignorance.

Verpies

QuoteOh, I am guilty of using these concepts myself on this forum.  Alas, without them I could not communicate with other members.
Nonetheless, every time I do that, I am acutely aware that they are merely conceptual crutches to cover up our lack of understanding of what we call "reality".

I would agree this is the accepted form of communication which has limitations.

QuoteI don't think Einstein said that (see the attachment).  But I do understand the sentiment behind this adage as I am a fan of simplicity myself.  I just think that multiplying fundamental/axiomatic concepts, which are necessary to explain reality, is not a step in this direction.

Einstein and Feynman were big fans of this idea and I also see it everywhere. If we ask a supposed expert a question and they cannot answer it simply without copying other people they are no expert. This is what Feynman was getting at with the Feynman Technique. Most people just memorize stuff with little real understanding of it. This is why in the real world most cannot solve any real problems which fall outside their limited understanding.

This is well known in every industry and I saw it daily as a lead Engineer. Maybe 5% of people can actually solve difficult problems they have never seen before and the rest are just sheep. It was an inside joke that outside the daily repetitive tasks most of the people were basically useless. As one Engineer put it, the juniors don't call me anymore because it's embarrassing for them when I can easily solve all the problems they find impossible. Not to sound condescending but this is just the way the real world works.

I think Feynman understood this all to well which is why he concentrated on first principals, understanding and simplicity.
-Explain the topic as if teaching a sixth-grader
-Identify areas of improvement in your explanation
-Improve and optimize your explanation
-Repeat the steps until you've achieved mastery of the topic

Coincidentally, Nikola Tesla talked about using the exact same technique. Tesla would simplify everything down to the smallest parts building, studying and rebuilding them in his mind until he was satisfied it worked. Tesla was literally using Feynman's technique.

AC

Here is another good example of people not questioning, not understanding and parroting a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT5oMBN5W5M
How Airplane Wings REALLY Generate Lift

In fact, as explained in the video, an airfoil generates a force upward using a higher pressure on the bottom of the airfoil and a lower pressure on top. Yet in high school everyone including myself was taught a lie claiming Bernoulli's principle and a lower pressure on top of the wing was the cause of lift.

I learned what was taught is a lie through experiment, building and testing RC airplanes, autogyros, helicopters and micro wind and water turbines. As I told some people, the wing theory taught in school is bs and I can make a wing out of a sheet of plywood. The only thing the curved upper surface really does is prevent turbulence and drag. We can also measure a higher pressure under the wing proportional to the lower pressure above.

Even an AI repeats the same lie until forcing the right question. It's response was then...

QuoteIn summary, both the higher pressure below and the lower pressure above the airfoil work together to generate lift, and your point about the contribution of the higher pressure is essential to understanding how airfoils function. Thank you for pointing that out!

Question, why does everyone claim only the low pressure above contributes to lift when it doesn't. Is this hearsay or outdated information?.

QuoteAnswer, The idea that only low pressure contributes to lift is indeed an oversimplification and can be attributed to educational practices, historical context, and communication gaps in the field of aerodynamics. A more accurate understanding acknowledges the critical role of both pressure zones in generating lift.

The thing to understand is that even a child knows when standing in the wind they feel a pressure pushing them backwards. So how is it so many adults couldn't figure out that a wing directing large volumes of air downward (mass changing direction) must also produce a pressure/force acting upwards?.

This complete nonsense and lack of understanding is why Feynman's Technique is so important in my opinion.
-Explain the topic as if teaching a sixth-grader
-Identify areas of improvement in your explanation
-Improve and optimize your explanation
-Repeat the steps until you've achieved mastery of the topic

AC

Continuing how airfoils really work.

Try these simple experiments.

1)Take a flat piece of cardboard and hold it parallel to the wind. It generates no lifting force.
2)Add a curved piece of cardboard on top like a wing and hold it parallel to the wind. It generates very little if any lifting force.
3)Vary the angle of attack of the flat piece of cardboard. Now it generates a great deal of force.

Here we can easily prove the majority of all force is generated by the redirection of a mass of air downward. The mass of air displaced downward is proportional to the force acting upward on the wing. Has anyone ever seen an airplane take off with it's wings parallel to the runway?, lmao. Of course not and on take off they "rotate" the airplane increasing the angle of attack of the wing generating more lift. In fact, if anyone bothered to look every airplane wing has a preset angle of attack, called the angle of incidence, relative to the airplane.

So it's kind of wild that 120 years later 99% of people still don't understand how a simple airplane wing actually works.

Here is a clue...
Question: what percentage of textbooks contain outdated information.
Answer: up to 30% of the content in some textbooks can be considered outdated.

Which begs the question, how could someone improve something when they seem to have no idea how it actually works in the first place?. Similar to the absurdity of Conventional Current Notation where some people still believe positive charges flow from (+) to (-) in a circuit, lol. I mean, it was proven to be a lie decades ago but... here we are.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.09.23, 15:44:13
Continuing how airfoils really work.

Try these simple experiments.

1)Take a flat piece of cardboard and hold it parallel to the wind. It generates no lifting force.
2)Add a curved piece of cardboard on top like a wing and hold it parallel to the wind. It generates very little if any lifting force.
3)Vary the angle of attack of the flat piece of cardboard. Now it generates a great deal of force.

Here we can easily prove the majority of all force is generated by the redirection of a mass of air downward. The mass of air displaced downward is proportional to the force acting upward on the wing. Has anyone ever seen an airplane take off with it's wings parallel to the runway?, lmao. Of course not and on take off they "rotate" the airplane increasing the angle of attack of the wing generating more lift. In fact, if anyone bothered to look every airplane wing has a preset angle of attack, called the angle of incidence, relative to the airplane.

So it's kind of wild that 120 years later 99% of people still don't understand how a simple airplane wing actually works.

Here is a clue...
Question: what percentage of textbooks contain outdated information.
Answer: up to 30% of the content in some textbooks can be considered outdated.

Which begs the question, how could someone improve something when they seem to have no idea how it actually works in the first place?. Similar to the absurdity of Conventional Current Notation where some people still believe positive charges flow from (+) to (-) in a circuit, lol. I mean, it was proven to be a lie decades ago but... here we are.

AC

I always enjoy a flight of fancy with you A.C so happy to engage again, I suggest the books are not simply 'outdated' the evidence is the powers that should not be (TPTSNB) have for years controlled what's allowed to be taught and what isn't . What books are allowed in circulation  and what are not..
In other words control the media and the narrative. You saw an excellent example with the convid Planned demic, That's easily trackable back to education , The removal of books, the introduction of others, The prostitution of health services internationally to such an extent that the UK and probably Canada too are still operating under 'emergency rule' so the parliament is still none functional.
Chance would have it another Canadian I enjoy watching Sums it up about 45 min – 1 Hr into this award winning video

https://corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/

Its replicated in the Bill Mollison video on the Trompe – Its not a case of outdated books they are outdated intentionally and we're being played like a Stradivarius and I.m.h.o its malicious. What Can we do? find what scraps we can and try to put what was a half decent jigsaw back together again. An example of Schooling 'removed' might apply to millions of Tesla tards - he was taught differently with entirely different dimensions.
from books you won't find for love nor money now. This A.C is a clip from 1826 so not a book that's outdated , indeed its very dated , a book and teaching effectively eradicated ergo its not 'outdated' its the selective genocide of knowledge

https://rumble.com/v6ze3lu-maxwells-equasions.html (https://rumble.com/v6ze3lu-maxwells-equasions.html)

Kind Regards Duncan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qto0KTJ2WAs  The Bedini guy's latest vid.  (limitless potential technologies) It's interesting, and he is asking for help to answer some questions.

He'd make a good OUR member  O0

Duncan

QuoteIn other words control the media and the narrative.

Fake media and content is magnitudes worse than most people understand.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/how-to-make-a-phone-farm/

There are countless phone farms where one person on an AI computer can control hundreds of cell phones. Each phone can post hundreds of fake news or comments per hour. I saw a picture of one phone farm with over 100 people which could generate millions of fake posts per hour. It's estimated that 90% of posts on twitter/X are fake or bots.

Hi all,

The educational long video setting into mindset how efficiently everyone can use energy and where all waste and wrong assumptions are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekly4F4acSs

Hopefully it is insightful.

Cheers!

This could be the next global train wreck...

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Zombie-Wells-A-280-Billion-Problem-the-US-Cant-Ignore.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=430XuAYowUo
Zombie Wells: The Threat Beneath

Apparently some people were not intelligent enough to figure out steel rusts. So eventually every well casing exposed to water will rust out leaving a clear path for the oil and gas to the surface. Not some wells literally all of them at some point in time. The documentary team also randomly tested abandoned wells and found at least half are already leaking.

Texas seems to be ground zero because this is where most of the first oil and gas wells were drilled. This isn't a billion dollar problem it's a multi-trillion dollar problem and literally every well ever drilled is going to need to be fixed. Wonder who is going to pay for the cleanup?...

Sadly, Robert Murray-Smith has passed away.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhramXiUrY4

The Bedini guy's latest video. He re-creates Hans Christian Ørsted's experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsueZ_eFRC4

Aking21

QuoteThe Bedini guy's latest video. He re-creates Hans Christian Ørsted's experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsueZ_eFRC4

I always found this demonstration funny in that most don't make the connection between the compass and the iron filings.

So when our coil is energized it produces a polarized (N-S) spherical magnetic field around itself. If we place compasses around the coil the magnetized compass needles fields will align with the coils magnetic field, N-S, N-S, as shown in the video.

The same phenomena happens with the iron filings through a process called "induced magnetism" shown below. The coils magnetic field "induces" an opposite magnetic field in each little piece of iron making it just like each compass needle. Each magnetized iron filing then aligns with the filing next to it in series N-S, N-S, N-S forming lines of magnetized filings aligned with the coils magnetic field.

As such, the induced magnetism in the iron filing is not showing imaginary lines of force. It's showing the same thing as the compass needles. It's showing what happens to magnetized elements in an external magnetic field. In fact, if the compass needles were placed close together they would also repel in parallel and attract in series forming lines just like the iron filings.

In many respects this also explains why most PM devices or concepts won't work. We think all the little magnets are separate but they are all joined by a common field just like the compass needles. Move one and the fields and forces on all of them change. We could think of it this way, free all the little magnets in a PM device and they will all want to snap together in series N-S, N-S, N-S in a straight line. If the line is long enough all the little N-S fields in series can form a circle. This is the reason we say the forces are conservative, because all the little forces are linked with each other as a whole.

If we want to build a PM motor this is the first problem we need to solve imo.

The Bedini guy: This is an interesting video. He challenges Physics!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nxb3h2zd20

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.11.21, 04:33:52
The Bedini guy: This is an interesting video. He challenges Physics!!

He falls prey to the misconceptions which I described here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117520#msg117520).

The Bedini guy's latest progress (short video):  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G0yaNbSWdk8

Well, at least he's going to town to prove or disprove the tech.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.12.05, 00:04:56
The Bedini guy's latest progress (short video):  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G0yaNbSWdk8

Well, at least he's going to town to prove or disprove the tech.

I don't see any reliable input / output measurements apart from using sometimes cheap voltage amp meter in last videos. To this date he's about clickrate and not about showing something serious.

Aking.21 the Bedini stuff is fake,so far I only see 2 devices that could be real the tpu and the
kap device.The problem with the tpu is in my opinion Steven Mark was in here and on
overunity,said stupid things in a makeup name to create confusion,said he worked with
Steven Mark its not Jack Durban,he also was a regular member both here and on overunity.Steven

Mark told massive
lies,kapanadze was a massive liar also.Is that guy that had the Aquarium kapanadze device built still

around, kapanadze cheated him for I think $10,000.Any device that is real will have to work

outside
regular laws,conservation of energy laws prevent free energy,only in the form of an energy
converter,the source of energy must be close to the device.In my opinion  both devices operate similarly
,one is a dc based device,the other an ac device.Before you can replicate anything
you have to sort thru truths and lies.

Quote from: Cheappower2012 on 2025.12.06, 07:15:26
Is that guy that had the Aquarium kapanadze device built still around, kapanadze cheated him for I think $10,000.

Ironically (since you're actually replying to the man himself), I believe that was Aking.21.

It was actually 20K. He was  on a salary. Add up the cost of the equipment he charged us and air flights etc and it totaled out at about 20k dollars.
Yes, I gave the spec for the Aquarium2.  (I should have insisted it was without an earth ground.)  20:20 vision in hindsight.

I believe it would not work without ground connection to the quite substantial source of electrons.

Aking.21 I would think the ground played no part in its operation.With kapanadze he was full
of tricks I think the ground wire was one,it also created a point where it could be faked.
There are a lot of very smart people here,they think in conventional ways,the tpu and kaps
device
operate in a combination of conventional and unknown principles,very hard to solve.Heres one
where the current in the kap device is generated is in the coil,in the tpu, its in the windings
it generates  massive current pulses.The important factor is the length not how its wound.
In the aquarium 2 device you have a situation where the main part of transformers windings
can not source the current needed to power the heater.In my pinion the first part
of the transformer supplies the heater ,the second part,that funny looking coil
is simply a coil its purpose is to generate current to the third part,the third part
is used as a step down transformer.The third part of the transformer supplies
power to the various circuits and closes the loop.With kapanadze dead did hes sons continue
making devices or was the secret gone with kapanadze.

I made some inquiries with one Georgian contact, and he said no one knows the secret or how he did it.

The Bedini guy again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAkkdGXs40c
At 24 minutes, he states that Rich Friedrich is advising him.
Happy New Year to everyone.

Aking.21
Were you present at the aquarium 2 presentation?
In one part of the video ,the person a British guy lifts the device and turns it almost upside down
the heater turns off.Very important part if the device uses gravity to power it.
The active component, the transformer must be flat since gravity is a vertical force,turning it at an angle would reduce the power output a reduced current would cause the heater to go out.In my opinion both this device and the tpu
convert gravity energy to electrical energy.

If device was heavy then I suppose because of lots of ferrite inside ;-) O0

To understand new technology we could look at history and old technology.

Think of the Antikythera mechanism, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-well-did-the-mysterious-antikythera-mechanism-actually-work-180986451/

A 2000 year old ancient Greek analogue computer that was used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses decades in advance. This was 1750 years before the U.S. even existed. 500 years before Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas.

It makes sense because our history is represented incorrectly. People tend to think of the average person 2000 years ago not the 1% of wealth and influence who had advanced technology. These were small groups of scientists and engineers who had the spare time to invent stuff and explore new ideas unlike the average person just trying to survive. Leonardo da Vinci is a good example of a person far ahead of his time. Many of Leonardo da Vinci's ideas were 400 years or 15 generations ahead of his time. I can only imagine where we will be in 400 years.

Most people make the same mistake today thinking the technology we know about is as good as it gets. Obviously this isn't the case, it never is if history is any indication. There are always small groups of people developing advanced technology we may never see. So this false notion that one person can do no better than anyone else is beyond absurd in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAkkdGXs40c

Another DIY enthusiast in his garage who claims to talk about science and physics. What he says makes no sense, no reasoning, just gibberish, but 'thousands of amps' as he says, and sparks, impress the ignorant. He is seeking funds through GoFundMe and has acolytes who, through their comments, praise his approach. Go ahead, suckers, keep the crooks in business, and you'll be the first to get free electricity.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.06, 17:00:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAkkdGXs40c

Another DIY enthusiast in his garage who claims to talk about science and physics. What he says makes no sense, no reasoning, just gibberish, but 'thousands of amps' as he says, and sparks, impress the ignorant. He is seeking funds through GoFundMe and has acolytes who, through their comments, praise his approach. Go ahead, suckers, keep the crooks in business, and you'll be the first to get free electricity.

That's a bad analogy considering some of the wealthiest most successful people like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos literally got started in their garage with a crazy idea. Elon Musk doesn't count because apparently his daddy gave him a few million to buy into an existing company.

I think it's cool that people are getting others interested in this kind of thing and doing real experiments. I don't see it as science vs experimenters but people who do nothing vs people who try to find answers by experiment. Science and experimenters have much more in common than people who do nothing.

We also need to be careful about people telling others what to think and how to spend their own money.

F6FLT do you believe  free energy is possible,that is a device that produces
free energy with out an apparent source.Do you believe in general relativity as an explanation for gravity
where gravity is not a force but a curvature of space.Do you believe all free energy devices are fake.

Quote from: Cheappower2012 on 2026.02.07, 04:19:38
Do you believe in general relativity as an explanation for gravity where gravity is not a force but a curvature of space.

I vehemently disagree with that notion.
Any objectification of a reference system (space) is repugnant to me.

Quote from: Cheappower2012 on 2026.02.07, 04:19:38
F6FLT do you believe  free energy is possible,that is a device that produces
free energy with out an apparent source.Do you believe in general relativity as an explanation for gravity
where gravity is not a force but a curvature of space.Do you believe all free energy devices are fake.

All free energy devices are fake or errors, until proven otherwise, which we are still waiting for. That said, there is no reason to believe that we cannot produce virtually free energy, because compared to the energies and forces at work in the universe, human needs are insignificant. But only if we can get it from somewhere.

As far as GR is concerned, your question makes no sense to me. In science, we don't operate within a belief system. We have models, GR being one of them. A model is validated by the accuracy of its predictions in relation to observations and measurements within a certain domain of validity, and as long as we don't have anything better, we use it.
You can believe whatever you want, but that won't help you synchronize GPS clocks.

That's the whole difference between science and the pseudoscience of "free energy."
Only the former can produce devices that work. Today, "free energy" is 95% esotericism, insubstantial gibberish that never amounts to anything. It will become science when it has a replicable device that works and can explain how it works.

I agree that to call something science it must be demonstrable and able to be reproduced. Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

However we have many problems yet to be solved. For example, free energy implies something can be more than the sum of it's parts which seems absurd. I mean it's like saying we could throw a bunch of inanimate particles together and get something more than a bunch of particles. Silly right?.

Oh wait, if this were true then none of you can exist. In fact we as humans are just a large group of molecules and atoms made of Protons, Electrons and Neutrons. Were made of exactly the same supposedly inanimate stuff as everything else and yet here we are a living conscious being. It's weird that a supposed scientist who claims something cannot be more than the sum of it's parts can see demonstrable and reproducible proof how wrong they are every time they look in a mirror.

Here's a clue, science can borrow material from existing life and reproduce it like planting a seed but have no idea how to create a seed from inanimate material. In fact they have no idea how to create a self-sustaining, evolving living system like nature does. We can plant a seed and the first thing it does is start extracting and converting the energy and materials all around it to sustain itself and grow. The larger the plant grows the more energy and materials it can extract to grow even more. I'm not claiming this is free energy only that we have demonstrable proof that some systems can self-organize, self-sustain themselves and extract energy from the environment.

So this notion of "free energy" is a red herring in my opinion and it's not required to do what we want. What we want is a self-sustaining system which can extract energy from the environment and we already have more than enough demonstrable proof this is possible. Nature and life is our proof.

What happens if you mix an explosive with a piezoelectric substance and detonate it ?  ;)

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.02.07, 16:42:07
...
For example, free energy implies something can be more than the sum of it's parts which seems absurd.
....

Strictly speaking, I agree. But unless we are fundamentalists, we must take a more moderate view of 'free energy',  namely energy that does not require a great deal of effort or money to obtain.
This does not imply that it is created from nothing, but that it is available, like the air we breathe.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.08, 09:19:53
Strictly speaking, I agree. But unless we are fundamentalists, we must take a more moderate view of 'free energy',  namely energy that does not require a great deal of effort or money to obtain.
This does not imply that it is created from nothing, but that it is available, like the air we breathe.

I agree and found it difficult to hold multiple perspectives at once. To be an engineer where everything must be demonstrable and practical versus quantum mechanics and naturalism.

In some sense normalcy is a big problem and we tend to take many things for granted imo. I keep coming back to the idea of a seed and self-organizing self-sustaining systems which seem far beyond our capacity to replicate. It's like saying I'm going to take this handful of ordinary dirt and transform it into a self-organizing, self-sustaining living thing capable of growing and reproducing itself. The technology to replicate a seed is so far beyond the scope of our intelligence and yet it is considered normal and insignificant.

So we need to be careful of our perspective and nothing should be normalized imo. We should see thing for what they are in reality not what others tell us to believe.

I have defeated Lenz's law!

Consider two coupled magnetic coils, A and B. A is connected to a generator, B to a resistor.
A variable current I with a constant slope dI/dt = k is passed through coil A.
In B, the induced current is proportional to the variation in current in A (Faraday's law), so it will be constant, proportional to k.
A DC current then flows in B, supplying energy to R. However, a DC current in one coil cannot induce a current in another, so there is no 'counter-current' in A due to B.

No reaction. There you have it, free energy!  ;D

If I were a pretentious naïf or a con artist, that's the conclusion I would give you in a YouTube video accompanied by big coils and beautiful oscillograms, explaining that it was too simple for those idiot scientists to understand.

But I'm not like that. And free energy isn't easy. It's up to you to find the flaw.  ;)

Congratulations!!!  Oh, wait a minute?!

With coil A receiving a di/dt current ramp, a constant voltage will be produced across coil A due to E=di*L/dt.  You didn't say whether coil A and B were in an open flux solenoid type of configuration or in a closed flux configuration as in a toroid but it doesn't matter.  The constant E-Field created in coil A creates a constant E-Field in coil B with a magnitude dependent on the coupling between the two coils.  This constant E-Field across coil B creates an increasing di/dt in coil B due to the resistive load.  Therefore, the current in coil B is not constant and will be seen by coil A via the Lenz effect.

However as I have shown, a constant current load on coil B does defeat Lenz.

Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2026.02.14, 22:08:36
.....  This constant E-Field across coil B creates an increasing di/dt in coil B due to the resistive load. 

Hmmmmm!!!!! C.C

Quote from: partzman on 2026.02.14, 22:08:36
Congratulations!!!  Oh, wait a minute?!

With coil A receiving a di/dt current ramp, a constant voltage will be produced across coil A due to E=di*L/dt.  You didn't say whether coil A and B were in an open flux solenoid type of configuration or in a closed flux configuration as in a toroid but it doesn't matter.  The constant E-Field created in coil A creates a constant E-Field in coil B with a magnitude dependent on the coupling between the two coils.  This constant E-Field across coil B creates an increasing di/dt in coil B due to the resistive load.  Therefore, the current in coil B is not constant and will be seen by coil A via the Lenz effect.

However as I have shown, a constant current load on coil B does defeat Lenz.

Pm

Wrong! The current will indeed be DC during the ramp time T (I am not talking about transients in coil B, I am talking about a steady state when di/dt=k in A, which corresponds to the period T on the diagram.
The proof is straightforward:
let M be the mutual induction coefficient.
Voltage induced in B: e_b = -M.di_a/dt = -k.M = constant
Current : since B is connected to a resistor, i_b=e_b/R=-k.M/R will also be constant, we can also find this using the current equation.

The only thing I said that is wrong is 'No reaction.'
The question is why. The trap is to see only the DC current in coil B. A clue: is the flux in B constant?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.15, 16:36:44
Wrong! The current will indeed be DC during the ramp time T (I am not talking about transients in coil B, I am talking about a steady state when di/dt=k in A, which corresponds to the period T on the diagram.
The proof is straightforward:
let M be the mutual induction coefficient.
Voltage induced in B: e_b = -M.di_a/dt = -k.M = constant
Current : since B is connected to a resistor, i_b=e_b/R=-k.M/R will also be constant, we can also find this using the current equation.

The only thing I said that is wrong is 'No reaction.'
The question is why. The trap is to see only the DC current in coil B. A clue: is the flux in B constant?

:)

I knew my response would be controversial but it is not wrong! First, the flux in B is not constant.  You do realize that the application of the constantly increasing current is A as you have depicted from your current generator in your diagram, produces a constant voltage across A.  This is the same as applying the constant voltage across A with the resulting linear increasing di/dt as you show.  We know this configuration will produce an increasing current in B due to the load resistor.

Also, I do not adhere to secondary 'induction' into B!

Pm

@partzman

The induction in B is classic, linked to the variation of I in A. It is only the form of the variation, a constant ramp, that causes the voltage and current in B to be constant. And I agree about the constant voltage required on A, but in practice only in a transient phase, because then the current becomes constant at V/R_a, so the voltage must be increased further to ensure that di/dt=k.

As you say, the flux through B is not constant. In fact, in addition to the constant Φ_b created by the DC current in B, there is a variable component linked to A, since its current increases.

For energy, we have W = 1/2.L_a.I_a² + 1/2.L_b.I_b² + M.I_a.I_b
For power, since dI_b/dt=0, we have dW/dt = L_a.I_a.k + M.I_b.k and since I_b=-M.k/R, dW/dt = L_a.I_a.k - M².k²/R
Since Pa = L_a.I_a.k is the power supplied by A, P_a = dW/dt + M².k².R. We understand that the generator of current Ia has to supply surplus power to compensate for that dissipated by R. No free energy.

However, this tells us nothing about how the current in B could oppose the current in A. We can only guess that part of the flux variation from A to B would tend to increase the current in B, and that the flux variation produced by B, caused by this increase in current, is immediately compensated by its dissipation in R. In other words, the direct current has no role, but there is a hidden flux variation that self-compensates between A and B. B takes magnetic energy from the field generated by A, so A must produce more to maintain di/dt=k when B supplies the resistance.

This part of Maxwell's electromagnetism is completely unclear. The magnetic field is a misleading intermediary, as is the associated Maxwell-Faraday law. We can do without it.
It is much simpler with the electric field. The movement of charges in circuit A changes the topology of their Coulomb field, and therefore the electric field E by relativistic contraction of lengths. The non-constancy of I_a causes a non-zero tangential component of the electric field to appear around circuit B. The charges are therefore driven into circuit B, slowed down by resistance R, with the reaction effect of slowing down the charges in circuit A as they are reciprocally influenced by the Coulomb field of the charges in circuit B. The generator of I_a will therefore have to use more power.
This is conceptually and qualitatively clear, and here perfectly symmetrical between A and B. The calculation, however, is more complicated.
The Maxwellian model using the magnetic field breaks this symmetry and gives rise to false paradoxes.

If we could create a transformer so that alternating current would flow in the primary winding.
And in the secondary, immediately only direct current was rectified and flowed.
Which is corresponding in magnitude to the current in the primary winding. :)
Would be this OU device ?

If we taught ourselves to solve problems in the dynamic magnetic domain circuit, where core reluctance is like electric resistance, flux is like electric current, mmf is like electric voltage etc., life would be quite simple.  A coil loaded with a resistor appears in the magnetic circuit as a magnetic inductance Lm obeying mmf=-Lm*dPhi/dt.  The solution for the two coupled coils A and B is easily derived.

Smudge

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.15, 16:36:44
Wrong! The current will indeed be DC during the ramp time T (I am not talking about transients in coil B, I am talking about a steady state when di/dt=k in A, which corresponds to the period T on the diagram.
The proof is straightforward:
let M be the mutual induction coefficient.
Voltage induced in B: e_b = -M.di_a/dt = -k.M = constant
Current : since B is connected to a resistor, i_b=e_b/R=-k.M/R will also be constant, we can also find this using the current equation.

The only thing I said that is wrong is 'No reaction.'
The question is why. The trap is to see only the DC current in coil B. A clue: is the flux in B constant?

Well, let's take a closer look at your equations!

Number 1, "Voltage induced in B: eb = -M.dia/dt = -k.M = constant".  First, the sign on M and k is incorrect.  Take A and B wound on a common core using the standard dot convention with the dot being the start of each winding.  If the dot on A receives a positive pulse, the dot on B will be more positive than the unmarked finish.  Therefore, this equation should be "Voltage induced in B: eb = M.dia/dt = k.M = constant".  Under the same conditions only with current in the windings, ia=-ib.

So, let's apply some real world conditions.  La=Lb=5mh with a coupling factor K=.9.  Therefore using M=K*(La*Lb)1/2=4.5mh.  Our voltage supply Vs=50v, dt =10us, and using dia=ea*dt/La, dia=100ma.   Substituting in the corrected equation we have eb=.0045*.1/10e-6=45v.  This can be confirmed due to the fact that also eb=K*ea=.9*50=45.  You define k=di/dt or k=.1/10e-6=10e3.  So, k*M=10e3*.0045=45. 

Then you state  "ib=eb/R=-k.M/R will also be constant".  This is incorrect because you have not included dt in your ib=eb/R equation.  In doing so it is clear there would dib in the B coil.  What am I missing here?

Pm

I applied the standard equations, they are correct. Before saying that it is wrong, think about it. For example, the sign - in eb = -M.dia/dt comes from the fact that eb=-dΦ/dt, it is a convention. Or when I say that ib is constant, it is only proportional to dia/dt=k, and there is no generator in circuit B. It's basic.
On the other hand, the generator is a current generator, not a voltage generator. Why do you absolutely want a voltage generator?! It doesn't matter, it only complicates things and could lead to errors. What matters is di/dt=k.

I just added the little power calculation to show that A supplies the energy, but it's irrelevant to the point.
What is interesting is the principle, the action of the charges in circuit B on those in circuit A, and the problem of applying Maxwell-Faraday's law in this context. That's the question I was asking. The rest is just details.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.16, 18:03:11
I applied the standard equations, they are correct. Before saying that it is wrong, think about it. For example, the sign - in eb = -M.dia/dt comes from the fact that eb=-dΦ/dt, it is a convention. Or when I say that ib is constant, it is only proportional to dia/dt=k, and there is no generator in circuit B. It's basic.
On the other hand, the generator is a current generator, not a voltage generator. Why do you absolutely want a voltage generator?! It doesn't matter, it only complicates things and could lead to errors. What matters is di/dt=k.

I just added the little power calculation to show that A supplies the energy, but it's irrelevant to the point.
What is interesting is the principle, the action of the charges in circuit B on those in circuit A, and the problem of applying Maxwell-Faraday's law in this context. That's the question I was asking. The rest is just details.

OK my bad and I corrected my previous post.   After some research, I see when You used eb=-dΦ/dt which defines a single turn.  For multiple turns flux linkage (λ=NΦ) should be used instead of flux.  This then allows us to generate eL​=−L*di/dt which when accounting for the current reversal in Lb, the voltage polarity across Lb is correct.

Pm

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.14, 17:56:18
However, a DC current in one coil cannot induce a current in another, so there is no 'counter-current' in A due to B.

Can a direct current component exist in such a nonlinear inductance?
If it will be coil B.  ;)

Is it possible to make a magnetic diode?
Something that allows magnetic flux to pass in one direction but not the other.

that is a magnet biased inductor.

mostly meant for buck and boost power supplies.   the idea is that you pulse the winding in the polarity that the magnetic field of the coil produces is in repulsion to the biasing magnet. as the winding builds the field in the core, opposing the magnets field, the winding pushes the magnets field out of the core and then driving the core even further with opposing flux to the magnet.

this allows the use of a smaller core but emulates a larger inductance.  generally to reduce the physical size for fitment in smaller equipment.   If you pulse the coil in the opposite direction, the core is already mostly saturated by the magnet, so self inductance would be to a minimum.   so in a way, yes. if the proper ac freq is used, it will have rectifying effect.  not on/ off, but a big difference in the amount of currents in one direction or the other.

I believe Tyco and a few other brands produce them.


Mags

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.03.03, 14:30:27
Is it possible to make a magnetic diode?
Something that allows magnetic flux to pass in one direction but not the other.

It is possible but impractical because it requires a mechanical device and has no miraculous effect on energy conservation. However, the driving effect of magnetism is interesting : https://physics.aps.org/articles/v11/s134

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.03, 17:14:22
It is possible but impractical because it requires a mechanical device and has no miraculous effect on energy conservation. However, the driving effect of magnetism is interesting : https://physics.aps.org/articles/v11/s134

what mechanical device?  possibly if done right, magnet biased inductor could act as a non voltage drop rectification.  id see it similar to teslas 1 way valve.

mags

It's weird that nobody seems to know what to do or where to start. Everyone seems to want to make everything so complicated when the premise is easy.
My first FE project was easy and anyone could build it. It was a solenoid engine like this, https://hackaday.com/2019/09/25/build-your-own-solenoid-engine/

The iron plunger and crankshaft mean little and the real variables are the switching and coil winding/geometry. The premise is very simple.
1)We use a small capacitor to send a slug of energy into the solenoid coil. The input is set to say 24v at 680uF and cannot change.
2)The only thing which can change is the amount of force applied to the plunger and how long the force lasts.
3)The total force applied to the plunger determines how long the crankshaft will rotate with a single impulse input into the coil.
4)This reduces all the complexity down to one problem which is how to produce the maximum force from the solenoid coil with a set input.

I can give you a clue and the problem relates to something called a permanent electromagnet. This concept is found in many places in the art and patents dating back to the early 1900's. the concept is easy to understand and if we input X energy into a properly wound and configured coil it produces a magnetic field which does not reduce with time. In effect it acts just like a permanent magnet which can be turned on and off.

It's obvious why it works, if we input X energy into a normal coil and the magnetic field lasts 1 second then if the magnetic field lasted 3 seconds it could do much more work. Thus the whole ball of wax comes down to one goal which is to make the magnetic field last as long as possible to do the most work on the plunger as possible.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.03.05, 00:09:49
It's weird that nobody seems to know what to do or where to start. Everyone seems to want to make everything so complicated when the premise is easy.
...
It's obvious why it works, if we input X energy into a normal coil and the magnetic field lasts 1 second then if the magnetic field lasted 3 seconds it could do much more work.
...

A childish truism. This simplicity is only the projection of a simplistic view onto complex matters. To accomplish work, a variation of flux is required, and therefore energy must be supplied to maintain the flux, compensating for what the work consumes. This is precisely what we discussed here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4792.msg118458#msg118458

Everything is simple to those who don't understand the issue. The less competent we are, the more we believe we have solutions. But obviously, these solutions don't work for anyone; they're just hot air. Their only reality is the cognitive dysfunction of a brain that doesn't understand its limitations and attributes them to others, especially scientists. In physics "everyone seems to want to complicate everything", but only in the eyes of those who do not understand a subject whose complication is beyond them.

so in the solenoid example AC has shown in the link, is there an advantage to having the whole crank shaft, etc., vs rotor with stators, etc.?


mags

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.03.07, 01:18:30
so in the solenoid example AC has shown in the link, is there an advantage to having the whole crank shaft, etc., vs rotor with stators, etc.?

mags

There is no advantage other than simplicity and many inventors used a simple spring to measure the solenoid coil output force vs time. The point is to remove all distractions from the process so we can concentrate on what's important. The only thing that matters here is energy conversion and efficiency.

Suppose we had an iron slug resting below a solenoid coil and when the solenoid coil is energized by a small measured impulse of electrical energy the iron slug is pulled upward and held in place by the solenoid coils magnetic field. The greater our knowledge and understanding the longer the iron slug will be held in place before it falls back to it's resting position. We can pretend to know all we want, spout laws and equations, point fingers and blame others all day long but it means little if nothing. The only proof of how much we actually understand is how long that iron slug is held against the force of gravity within the solenoid coil before it falls.

Maybe we need a friendly competition to demonstrate who actually understands what they are talking about?. Something anyone can afford unlike the pulse motor fiasco. Let's keep it super simple and we can work out the details here. I'm thinking...
1)a 1/2" x 3" soft iron slug cut from a standard 1/2" dia mild steel bolt.
2)The solenoid coil can be any dimension or number of turns and the only limitation is that the iron slug is free to move within the coil former.
3)The most important variable is the input energy and it must be a standard electrolytic capacitor not a battery. One capacitor of a known capacitance, let's say 10,000 uF at 35v which are very common so there is no question about how much energy is input into the system. The input energy is set and anything which happens after the fact is open.

I am collecting bits of this and that for your experimental challenge.

Hope to learn alongside the "kids"
Will mention this to ( invite) whomever I can think of ...
Respectfully
Chet K
Edit to explain "the Kids"
Teaching the younger persons in my life ( kids /grandkids etc)

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.03.08, 01:19:18
The only proof of how much we actually understand is how long that iron slug is held against the force of gravity within the solenoid coil before it falls.

Minimize the resistance of the winding. In a shorted winding the current persists indefinitely at zero R, ...and so does the magnetic flux generated by it. (https://youtu.be/ARLPjp4L1XM?t=82)
The time the slug is up is not a matter of knowledge - it is a matter of money because niobium wire and LH are expensive.

A short-circuited coil maintains its current if it is superconducting. A coil is charged with current in the same way that a capacitor is charged with voltage.

Our capacitors are almost ideal components because leakage currents are extremely low and losses in the dielectrics can be negligible.
Conversely, our coils are very poor components, mainly because of their resistance, which causes a coil charged with current to lose it very quickly.

But even if we had coils as ideal as our capacitors, which would maintain a current for as long as a capacitor maintains a voltage, this would not produce any more free energy than we get with capacitors.
A permanent magnet is ultimately just a set of superconducting nano-coils, which are electron spins, and no one has ever succeeded in using permanent magnets to produce a cycle that would generate work. And for good reason: magnetic work requires a variation in magnetic potential energy. If we don't have it, that's the cause of the effect we're making disappear. We can have it on part of a cycle, for example a magnet attracting a ferromagnetic piece. But to return that piece to its starting point, we would have to expend just as much energy.

Some will say that with a current in a coil, we could cut the current on the second part of the cycle and return the ferromagnetic piece to its starting point at zero cost. Wrong! This overlooks the fact that the work done in the first part of the cycle was at the expense of potential magnetic energy, meaning that the energy in the final magnetic field that will be recovered will be less than that initially applied, and the difference will represent the work that has been done.

The idea that a current maintained in a coil could be used to produce free energy is a remake of SMOT. It is equally inept. I understand that people had fun with it at one point, I was no exception, but after 20 to 30 years of failure in this area, it is time to understand the basic principles and realise that changing the DIY parts with coils instead of magnets does not invalidate a principle.

Simpletons see new fields of 'research' easy because they have replaced the red insulation on a conductor with green insulation, so clearly, it's not the same thing at all :) (I'm hardly exaggerating).  They see simplicity everywhere because they do not understand the relationships between the pieces of the physics puzzle, which are beyond them. Moreover, if in two centuries of electromagnetism everyone has failed to produce free energy, assuming that it is possible, it is because producing free energy is surely a subtle matter. They don't even grasp this simple idea; their contempt for scientists and their pretentiousness blind them.
Only the physics principles are (relatively) simple. But for free energy, new principles or new energy sources need to be found. We cannot count on those who see this as easy and go round in circle. If they could work a little, achieve something or think before they speak and utter childish naiveties with the assurance of an omniscient person, we could breathe a sigh of relief.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.08, 21:41:07
Some will say that with a current in a coil, we could cut the current on the second part of the cycle and return the ferromagnetic piece to its starting point at zero cost. Wrong! This overlooks the fact that the work done in the first part of the cycle was at the expense of potential magnetic energy, meaning that the energy in the final magnetic field that will be recovered will be less than that initially applied, and the difference will represent the work that has been done.

I once analyzed a similar scenario here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43697#msg43697).

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55541)

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.08, 21:41:07
........
A permanent magnet is ultimately just a set of superconducting nano-coils, which are electron spins, and no one has ever succeeded in using permanent magnets to produce a cycle that would generate work.
.........

That word "permanent" gives rise to the math that tells you why "no one has ever succeeded in using permanent magnets to produce a cycle that would generate work".  But that magnetism is not permanent, it decays over time.  There is a belief among most experts in magnetism that the Curie temperature causes an abrupt phase change in the material where it loses its "permanent" magnetism.  That is incorrect. It is not an abrupt phase change.  As you approach the Curie temperature the decay time constant reduces from tens of years to fractions of a seecond.  You turn off the current and use the natural decay of the remanent (so-called "permanent") magnetism for the slug to fall.  Do this for different temperatures near the Curie point.  I think that type of experiment could offer interesting results that develop new math perhaps extracting energy from the thermal agitations that cause the "permanent magnetism" decay.

Smudge

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.03.09, 03:39:25
...For example, recently a newbie that I was talking with, could not see the analogy between two arrangements of these nine cored coils besides their number, circularity and the central one:
...

:)
The thing is, free energy comes from the magic of appearances. And to convince people of this truth, all you need is a YouTube video where you walk around the setup like a Harry Potter master wizard, point your finger accusingly and say, 'The idea is simple, but scientists don't understand anything. I do,' and then explain your genius and how it works with a barrage of empty phrases, hocus-pocus and mumbo-jumbo. And the sleight of hand works on the less educated, who then repeat the gospel: 'Free energy is easy'.

@Smudge

I am open to all hypotheses, provided that they are logically consistent, compatible with what we already know, and refutable.

Whether through phase change or otherwise, the energy gained in one system is lost in another. We have never seen a closed system where the final situation is identical to the initial situation, with energy produced for the outside in between. Phase changes to date, regardless of their field, have not been able to provide free energy, so if this type of effect allows for free energy, it is as an intermediate means, which can certainly be interesting and useful, but not as a principle.

When it comes to free energy, I would add that the hypothesis must be testable, especially when we do not know what is depleted because the energy source is unknown. The experimental evidence must be commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the claim. But to prompt an experimental verification as proof of concept, which is very costly in terms of both working time and reflection, especially if it is not one's own idea, and given the systematic failures in the past, the concept must be perfectly clear, detailed and convincing.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.09, 09:05:26
@Smudge

I am open to all hypotheses, provided that they are logically consistent, compatible with what we already know, and refutable.

Here we have two separate sequences, (a) magnetization by electric means during which we supply a quantity of energy and (b) loss of magnetization by internal thermal agitation during which we extract a quantity of electrical energy.  This has already been the subject of comment in another thread of this forum quoting CoE that says you will not get more out than you put in.  Why can't these two separate effects act like a refridgerator or a heat pump with COP>1?  But unlike those, the output here is electrical energy and not heat energy?  Surely there is a market for such a system?     

QuoteWhether through phase change or otherwise, the energy gained in one system is lost in another. We have never seen a closed system where the final situation is identical to the initial situation, with energy produced for the outside in between.

But this is not a closed system.

QuotePhase changes to date, regardless of their field, have not been able to provide free energy

Really, what about Heat Pumps??

Quoteso if this type of effect allows for free energy, it is as an intermediate means, which can certainly be interesting and useful, but not as a principle.

When it comes to free energy, I would add that the hypothesis must be testable, especially when we do not know what is depleted because the energy source is unknown. The experimental evidence must be commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the claim. But to prompt an experimental verification as proof of concept, which is very costly in terms of both working time and reflection, especially if it is not one's own idea, and given the systematic failures in the past, the concept must be perfectly clear, detailed and convincing.

Well that Korean Company have produced notarial certificated data of exactly this even though they don't really know how their system works.

Smudge

I think the solenoid coil hold test is a good one because it's cheap, easy and shows how primitive our technology is.

When we use a battery and measure the voltage and current it can be deceiving. However when we use a set amount of energy from something like a capacitor we can see how quickly the energy dissipates. I mean we close the circuit, the iron slug moves a little and the majority of the energy we put into the system is completely wasted.

It reminds me of the magnetic bearing I invented. Give a normal 1/2hp induction motor a little spin by hand and it lasts maybe 1 second. Where I could give the same rotor the same spin on my magnetic bearings and it would keep turning for days. It's not magic, it just shows how something most consider normal can be grossly inefficient in reality. The goal is not to do the impossible only to do better than normal. In effect, once we start learning how to solve problems and the thought process required to learn everything gets easier.

Which brings us full circle back to the beginning of this post. Normally the majority of the energy we put into the system is completely wasted. The goal here is not to build a FE device more so do some basic experiments showing how to extend the run time of a circuit which holds the iron core of a solenoid in place. Keep It Simple Stupid applies here and we want to start with something cheap and simple so everyone can get involved.

I started a new thread here, https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4922.msg118533;topicseen#msg118533

Quote from: Smudge on 2026.03.09, 15:29:58

Quote
Phase changes to date, regardless of their field, have not been able to provide free energy

Really, what about Heat Pumps??Well that Korean Company have produced notarial certificated data of exactly this even though they don't really know how their system works.

Smudge

What do you see as "free" about a heat pump? You have to pay for the electricity. I'm in the process of replacing a boiler for a vacation home, and I'm going with a gas one, because even though gas is expensive, it still costs less than an electric heat pump.
And even if we recover more thermal energy than electrical energy, the system is incapable of sustaining itself. If it could sustain itself, it would be a Maxwell's demon. We can't rule out that possibility, but so far no one has succeeded. So we still have nothing for free, not even by drawing on thermal energy from the environment.
Given the number of announcements made in the past —similar to this one from the Korean company— that came to nothing, do you really think it's reasonable to treat it as if it were a supporting argument?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.13, 20:27:33
Really, what about Heat Pumps??Well that Korean Company have produced notarial certificated data of exactly this even though they don't really know how their system works.

Smudge
What do you see as "free" about a heat pump? You have to pay for the electricity.

Indeed you do pay priced at some unit cost per unit of electrical energy.  You can convert said unit of electrical energy into a unit of heat energy at close to 100% efficiency to heat your house.  Or you can drive a heat pump with COP>1 to get more heat energy where the excess can be considered as "free". 

QuoteI'm in the process of replacing a boiler for a vacation home, and I'm going with a gas one, because even though gas is expensive, it still costs less than an electric heat pump.

You say gas is expensive but here in the UK it is a quarter of the price of electricity.  And the installation cost for a gas boiler is far less than that for a heat pump, so if I were faced with your problem I would do what you are doing.

QuoteAnd even if we recover more thermal energy than electrical energy, the system is incapable of sustaining itself. If it could sustain itself, it would be a Maxwell's demon.

Yes, because the heat pump only gives out thermal energy.  But if we had an efficient means for converting environmental thermal energy into electrical energy would that be a Maxwell demon?

QuoteWe can't rule out that possibility, but so far no one has succeeded. So we still have nothing for free, not even by drawing on thermal energy from the environment.
Given the number of announcements made in the past —similar to this one from the Korean company— that came to nothing, do you really think it's reasonable to treat it as if it were a supporting argument?

I see nothing wrong with the concept of a system that extracts environment heat energy, converts it to electrical energy, with a COP>1.

Smudge

Smudge

QuoteYou say gas is expensive but here in the UK it is a quarter of the price of electricity.  And the installation cost for a gas boiler is far less than that for a heat pump, so if I were faced with your problem I would do what you are doing.

What are your gas and electrical rates where you are?. AI say's the UK is around $0.4167/kWh for power and $27/GJ for gas. I find this hard to believe and in Alberta I'm paying $0.12/kWh for power and $3/GJ for gas. All prices are in CAD dollars and 1 GigaJoule = 277.78 kWh.

Where I am natural gas is about 91% cheaper than power when comparing costs per kWh. Which sounds about right and my guesstimate was 10:1 before checking the prices.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.03.15, 21:23:14
Smudge
What are your gas and electrical rates where you are?. AI say's the UK is around $0.4167/kWh for power and $27/GJ for gas. I find this hard to believe and in Alberta I'm paying $0.12/kWh for power and $3/GJ for gas. All prices are in CAD dollars and 1 GigaJoule = 277.78 kWh.

Where I am natural gas is about 91% cheaper than power when comparing costs per kWh. Which sounds about right and my guesstimate was 10:1 before checking the prices.

My latest bill shows gas at 6.02p/kWh and electricity at 22.39p/kWh so a ratio of 3.72 there (100p=£1).  Those prices are capped by the UK government.  I am on a fixed rate contract that expires in June and the big concern here is the UK reliance on imported gas that is severely affected by the war in the Middle East.  Also the UK store of gas is measured in days so it seems a crisis is looming.  Our government is trying to move everybody away from gas, pushing households towards heat pumps.  My granddaughter does not have a gas supply and is reliant on oil deliveries where the war has caused her oil costs to more than double.

Smudge

Smudge

QuoteMy latest bill shows gas at 6.02p/kWh and electricity at 22.39p/kWh so a ratio of 3.72 there (100p=£1).  Those prices are capped by the UK government.  I am on a fixed rate contract that expires in June and the big concern here is the UK reliance on imported gas that is severely affected by the war in the Middle East.  Also the UK store of gas is measured in days so it seems a crisis is looming.  Our government is trying to move everybody away from gas, pushing households towards heat pumps.  My granddaughter does not have a gas supply and is reliant on oil deliveries where the war has caused her oil costs to more than double.

Thanks, so the AI estimate at around $0.4167/kWh for power and $27/GJ for gas was pretty close.

I'm not a big fan of air-air heat pumps but did a lot of calculations and design on enhanced heat pumps. For example, we cover a southern exposure with flat black vented soffit and the heat pump pulls intake air from behind the soffit. The sun heats the air on the surface of the soffit, is pulled through the holes in the soffit and this solar heat is added to the heat pump input. Extra heat can also be added by pulling warmer air from an attic space. It only works during the day but can easily double the COP.

I have no problem with alternative energy and I was into it before it became fashionable. My father built our house on the farm with a Trombe wall 45 years ago so I grew up with alternative energy. He used eight 4'x8' solar thermal panels using flat black soffit under double pane glass. The hot air was blown through 4" ducts in the concrete floor/thermal mass which kept the house warm all night. Our heating bill was 95% less than everyone else running a gas forced air furnace. I thought it was normal to have a $100 annual heating bill, lol.

I suspect my experience growing up is why I never found alternative or free energy all that difficult. The notion of environmental energy was normal and natural to me from a young age.

Quote from: Smudge on 2026.03.14, 10:00:04
...
I see nothing wrong with the concept of a system that extracts environment heat energy, converts it to electrical energy, with a COP>1.

Smudge

I agree in principle. The problem is that you cited the heat pump as a source of free energy, yet this energy is not currently free; you have to use electricity to extract energy from the environment, and the COP is currently so poor that it works out more expensive than gas. The theory, even though it has not proven that all Maxwell's demons are impossible (only certain types), has not proven their possibility either, so the whole thing remains highly hypothetical.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.03.16, 15:02:35
...
I suspect my experience growing up is why I never found alternative or free energy all that difficult. The notion of environmental energy was normal and natural to me from a young age.

That's how things were done in the past, when there was no electricity. We burned wood, and the CO₂ was then absorbed by the trees again. A self-sustaining system – 'how wonderful', as environmentalists would say.
The problem is that none of this meets our needs today. What might work for a detached house becomes a huge challenge when it comes to city blocks and hundreds of thousands of people to power. And even if it did, we would still be a very, very long way from meeting our overall needs, particularly those linked to industrial production and transport.
Even renewable energy lacks the consistency required for our needs, and causes significant nuisance due to the low ratio of energy produced to the space and volume occupied. Realistically, the only options currently available are oil, gas and nuclear power. And barring a miracle in the realm of free energy, the best option for the near future is nuclear fusion. Hot.

"Researchers at ETH Zurich have achieved a breakthrough by creating a miniature superconducting magnet capable of generating a 42-tesla field, small enough to fit in a palm. This 42-tesla (42 T) magnet, composed of four REBCO pancake coils, significantly advances superconducting technology for NMR and MRI applications."

now connect it with Clemente Figuera patent and for me it looks like MW power plant is almost possible today without big input power.

Hej Forest,

The super magnet needs liquid helium and over 1000 Amper to get 42 Tesla, did you consider that?    :D      It is surely an advancement in creating very strong magnetic fields though.

For others here, this is a description https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adz5826 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adz5826) 

Quote from: forest on 2026.03.16, 18:49:02
"Researchers at ETH Zurich have achieved a breakthrough by creating a miniature superconducting magnet capable of generating a 42-tesla field, small enough to fit in a palm. This 42-tesla (42 T) magnet, composed of four REBCO pancake coils, significantly advances superconducting technology for NMR and MRI applications."

now connect it with Clemente Figuera patent and for me it looks like MW power plant is almost possible today without big input power.

Quote from: gyula on 2026.03.16, 22:56:06
The super magnet needs liquid helium and over 1000 Amper to get 42 Tesla, did you consider that?   ://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adz5826[/url]

However, as with any superconducting electromagnet, the 1000A of current does not have to be continuously supplied from outside after it's ramped up. ...and this current does not run down so the electromagnet becomes self-powered and can by moved around as long as the LH stays cold.
In practice, the recondensing pump dissipates some energy to keep the LH liquid but that in not the electromagnet's fault.  The heat used to boil the LH does not come from the magnet but from the air and ambient temperature.  Thermal insulation is a big factor.

"Furthermore, the magnet coils are small enough to fit in the palm of a hand and consume less than 1 watt of power."

superconducting.   hmm.  ok.  how much energy does it take to gather and compress the gas that cools the super conductor in order to hold currents indefinately??  seems like a lot to keep that going. 

superconductors have their uses. but the cost is not a bargan in real world applications. i keep hearing of 'ideal' this and that.  many say FE is fantasy land, but keep refering to super this and that, of which seems super costly for general use... Tesla im sure, if he had FE, did not require super anything. just simplistic materials configured in a correct way. that is what we need to work on.   

lets say we could get a super conductor to have never ending currents. it is only stored energy that 'costs' to hold it.  break that loop and apply it to a work load. not so ever lasting now is it. did it have more energy than what was applied in the first place, even if we neglected the energy to cool the thing?  super conductors are useful for certain things. but there is no free energy there.

mags

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.03.17, 06:01:52
Let's say we could get a superconductor to have never ending currents. It is only stored energy that 'costs' to hold it.

Yes, especially on the warm Earth.  In space it would not cost anything to hold it.

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.03.17, 06:01:52
Break that loop and apply it to a work load. Not so ever lasting now is it.

Correct, once the loop is broken - so is the current.

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.03.17, 06:01:52
Did it have more energy than what was applied in the first place, even if we neglected the energy to cool the thing? 

No, what you get out is what you put in.   Just like with a capacitor but by a different mechanism.

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.03.17, 06:01:52
superconductors are useful for certain things. but there is no free energy there.

Certainly not by themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9b3bPyizbc

The Bedini guy, seems to be going round in circles.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2026.03.24, 11:17:36
The Bedini guy, seems to be going round in circles.

Describe the circles

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.03.24, 13:11:39
Describe the circles

He keeps re-building the same circuitry with "It'll work this time" hopium. Different coils, better diodes, higher spec transistors, better gate drivers, etc etc,... and now his bearings are done, so they need replacing. As I said, "circles". lol

I saw a few days video which I think present one of the simplest free energy device and IMHO it's real. The only thing which is missing is tank circuit on primary powered by any electronic resonant circuit. Primary must be high Q to get high COP at output:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmy-QuaXQjY&t=140s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmy-QuaXQjY&t=140s)

Schematic :

Quote from: forest on 2026.03.24, 20:49:33
I saw a few days video which I think present one of the simplest free energy device and IMHO it's real. The only thing which is missing is tank circuit on primary powered by any electronic resonant circuit. Primary must be high Q to get high COP at output:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmy-QuaXQjY&t=140s

It uses this (https://aliexpress.com/item/32803789310.html) Chinese miracle.

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55648)

Even if you somehow learn the output voltage, frequency and current of this module, replicating that 12x8cm transformer-capacitor only with information about its wire gauges, is a shot in the dark.

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55646)  Transformer-capacitor with 3 windings.

A similarly wound transformer-capacitor also appears in this article (https://energy4all-ru.translate.goog/pe.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en).

Also, that light bulb is not a resistive incandescent type like the symbol on the schematic implies.  The accompanying text on the schematic clarifies this.
In the video, it appears as a cracked standard LED bulb tailored for a 240VAC mains supply, but the physics of LEDs requires them to be supplied with a much lower voltage ...and DC or PDC.
To satisfy this requirement, that LED light bulb must have some kind of 240VAC to low-voltage DC converter built-in.  This converter will have a profound impact on the current flowing in the primary winding of the transformer-capacitor since that LED bulb is connected in series with it.

In the simplest case, the converter is constructed as a simple capacitive divider with a rectifier. 
In more complex solutions, the 240VAC is first rectified and then applied to a high-frequency buck-converter. 
In the highest quality LED bulbs, an additional high-frequency PFC stage precedes the buck converter.

The first case severely distorts the current waveform coming out of the Chinese HV module and the two latter solutions modulate the primary current of the transformer-capacitor with undetermined high frequency harmonics.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.03.24, 21:12:37
...
A similarly wound transformer-capacitor also appears in this article (https://energy4all-ru.translate.goog/pe.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en).
...

How can a bloke who seems to have access to decent equipment be so incompetent that he makes so many crass, beginner's mistakes?
For example, he denies that a circuit with a capacitor in series is a closed circuit for varying currents, not an open one! And he even uses this as a pretext to criticise the laws of physics.  C.C

Clearly, he only wants to see what suits him, and will therefore never manage to create a self-sustaining device, despite how easy it would be to do so if one were to believe the far-fetched and dubious principles he puts forward.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.26, 14:12:24
For example, he denies that a circuit with a capacitor in series is a closed circuit for varying currents, not an open one! And he even uses this as a pretext to criticise the laws of physics.  C.C

Maybe he does not believe in displacement current ...or has never heard of it  ...or maybe you did not realize that this article has been machine translated from the russian language and in that language an open switch has 0Ω resistance and a closed switch has ∞ resistance (ideally).

Also he might have never heard of the variability of capacitance with voltage in non-ideal capacitors. ...and about inductive CSRs.

On the other hand: this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmy-QuaXQjY) claims increasing battery voltage.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.03.27, 06:36:41
.......an open switch has 0Ω resistance and a closed switch has ∞ resistance (ideally).

Does the translator really make that profound mistake?

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2026.03.27, 09:29:35
Does the translator really make that profound mistake?

Russian transistors, too.  Their collector and drain currents are the largest when the transistors are "open".

Oh!, you asked about "translator" - not "transistor".  Yes, machine translators make that mistake all the time.  Human translators, too.
It is not a matter of translating the individual words "open"  and "closed" incorrectly.  For example: the word "open" in a phrase like "open windows" has the same meaning in both Russian and English ...but in the phrase "open transistor" the same word has the opposite meaning.
These words acquire different meanings in electric contexts.  Only a technical human translator or an AI translator would be able to account for this context.

I know how to make OU. Unfortunately, it isn't possible today with the current development of civilization, because a hole through the ground is needed.
A rocket, when leaving the ground, has more kinetic energy than was its fuel burned .  The Oberth effect works.  O0
The rocket receives part of its kinetic energy from the gravitational field.

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.03.29, 07:43:12
I know how to make OU. Unfortunately, it isn't possible today with the current development of civilization, because a hole through the ground is needed.
A rocket, when leaving the ground, has more kinetic energy than was its fuel burned .  The Oberth effect works.  O0
The rocket receives part of its kinetic energy from the gravitational field.

The Oberth effect is really interesting and there are many other effects related to it.

I think of a Pelton water turbine where the kinetic energy of the water doing work on the turbine can be reduced to near zero. The water enters the bucket at high velocity doing work but turns 180 degrees doing more work as it leaves. If water leaves the bucket at X velocity and the bucket is moving in the opposite direction at X velocity the water appears to be standing still and falls straight down away from the bucket. Similar to this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zllEVOn9NjM

A similar effect seems to happen in electrical systems. An electron current can appear to be moving quickly in a solenoid coil however if the iron core is far away from the coil the current's magnetic field does little work on it and most of the electrons kinetic energy dissipates as heat. It appears as a kind of slippage in the system where the electrons or water or hot gasses from a rocket have kinetic energy but it is not transferred to the thing we want to perform work on. This is why it's important to find the sweet spot in any system where as much of the input is transferred to the output as possible.

This also relates to the reason almost all FE devices use impulses instead of continuous flows. Viktor Schauberger explained this phenomena well. In a continuous flow every part of the water is tied to the motion of the other parts behind it and in front of it like so (0000000000). This is not true with a mixture of air and water where a droplet of water which can move independently of any other droplets like so (0  0  0  0  0  0  0). Schauberger used whorl pipes and fins to guide the water droplets into the center of the pipe filled with air so it seldom if ever touched the walls of the pipe thus had no friction. It's so simple a child could understand it, push the water droplets to the center of the pipe so they can move without friction through air instead of water. The water droplets can move much faster because they are not held back by any of the other droplets of water like a continuous water flow. Imagine a pipe where the flow inside of it only touches the pipe walls 1% of the time and it becomes obvious why there was very little friction.

Can a Tesla valve regularize Brownian motion ?

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.03.30, 13:55:54
Can a Tesla valve regularize Brownian motion ?

If it does then the Brownian motions of the hot molecules can be directionalized by a parabolic mirror, too.

Consider the following thought experiment:

Electrolysis happens at the bottom of the Mariana trench and the buoyancy of a HHO gas bubble performs mechanical work as it ascends to the surface.
The volume of the bubble strongly depends on the pressure of the surrounding water so it starts small and enlarges as it approaches the surface.

After reaching the surface, the HHO gas in the bubble is ignited and the energy of combustion is added to the mechanical work performed by the ascending bubble.

HHO gas diffusion into the surrounding water is prevented with reusable bladders/balloons, which still allow heat transfer between the sea water and the HHO gas.

The following energy balance accounts for the effects of ocean water's temperature gradient from the bottom to the surface as the bubbles ascend.
It also accounts for the change in water electrolysis efficiency that varies with pressure and temperature (accounting for the Nernst penalty and water compression credit as well as the heat absorbed during the electrolysis itself).


Energy to Produce 1 mole of HHO at the bottom of the trench:
Since 1 mol HHO = ⅔ mole of H₂ + ⅓ mole of O₂, this requires splitting ⅔ mole of H₂O:

Minimum electrical energy (reversible)	175.4 kJ
Heat absorbed from 2.5°C ocean	15.7 kJ
Total energy (thermoneutral, no external heat)	191.0 kJ

Complete Energy Balance - electrolysis at the bottom, bubble ascent, and combustion at the surface ( Electrolyze → Ascend → Burn ):

ENERGY INPUT:

Electrical energy for electrolysis	175.4 kJ
Ocean heat absorbed during electrolysis	15.7 kJ
Ocean heat absorbed during ascent	17.6 kJ

Energy OUTPUT:

PdV expansion work during ascent	17.0 kJ
Combustion energy at surface	190.6 kJ
----------------------------------------	-----------
Net energy (out − electrical in)	+32.2 kJ
Effective COP	1.18

If you want to talk about free energy lets try starting with this.

Paulo & Alexandra CORREA PAGD (Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge
https://rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm

Dr. Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D is not some quack, does not make silly youtube videos, and is a Master of Science having impeccable credentials with decades of hands on experience. Much more knowledgable than anyone here and he has basically spelled out how this technology works.

Or would you guys rather waste more time debating youtube videos  ;D

Let's start with credibility...

P.N.Correa, MSc, PhD & A.N. Correa, HBA. This guy seems to be an expert in damn near everything including glass blowing his own discharge tubes. His friend, Arthur A. Axelrad MD, PhD, FRSC, Emeritus University Professor, University of Toronto witnessed the technology working and was very impressed.

As well the work is brilliant, impeccable showing detailed drawings including circuit diagrams and graphing all of the variables in detail. For those who can actually read they spell out the exact criteria needed to produce the effect and the mechanism for gain.

We could also note the mention of T.H.Morays work which is almost identical.
https://www.rexresearch.com/moray2/morayrer.htm

Moray was not some quack and demonstrated a circuit in a small wooden box with an output of 20,000 watts. Not some minor anomaly, not a small measurement error. Only a fool would think 20 kW of power from a device demonstrated on a table in the middle of nowhere is a measurement error imo.

Years ago Marco tried to muster interest in PAGD
In "off forum" messages he said he had seen the future and it was "nuclear" energy ( always through me off.. or a deterrent in my cranium as it frightened me ( the layman..

Nowadays my understanding of what that may actually look like ...

Is a place to experiment (Plasma and vacuum or pressure....and matter and magnetic fields .
AC
I like this approach and I see it's a place you have always favored...
Or
"The space between the spaces" ( minuscule atomic spaces

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.04.02, 14:54:58
Years ago Marco tried to muster interest in PAGD
In "off forum" messages he said he had seen the future and it was "nuclear" energy ( always through me off.. or a deterrent in my cranium as it frightened me ( the layman..

Nowadays my understanding of what that may actually look like ...

Is a place to experiment (Plasma and vacuum or pressure....and matter and magnetic fields .
AC
I like this approach and I see it's a place you have always favored...

Indeed, I always found it a little strange that many seem to focus on the worst examples of free energy. Oh look, another youtube video with no useful information which could move the conversation forward.

I tend to look at the best examples of FE which have some credibility and common features. T.H.Moray and Correa's work are nearly identical technologies and the best examples imo. In the Correa's article, https://rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm, look at section #4 references. It's a who is who of the best plasma research on the planet. These aren't some weekend warriors making video's these are people who have dedicated their lives to finding answers. 

Correa is great but the vacuum and glass blowing always scared me off.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.02, 16:21:52
Correa is great but the vacuum and glass blowing always scared me off.

I remember years ago playing with evacuated fluorescent tubes ,having spent many years running demolition jobs In NYC ,I was good at ( sort of neatly) removing the end to evacuate the tubes( whack/boom) and from there it's a little soap and water and a nice little  torch to soften /melt the ends ..
Also other glass tubes and epoxy ( sealed with glass piping installed ) are probably a good method .
It's just that the failed flourescent tubes are free and ...
There free !!
Always wanted to get better at utilizing glass for tubes and experiments

PS
Marco if you're still around please reach out !
In the old days Marco was a big part of this forums TPU heritage (IMO)
Although a bit feisty...( a sideways compliment in NYC)
He posted a vid of an older Frenchman hand building radio tubes ..completely from scratch!!
Absolutely incredible..and perhaps relevant ...to future vacuum tube experiments ? ( gotta look for that vid

Respectfully
Chet
Pps
In my quest to find the old Frenchman's tube building vid ( from Marco)
I found Marco's dancing magnets ( although it's someone else's repost of Marco's work ..still amazing to watch...( imo)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUJza3l8rmU
Still looking for scratch built glass tube builder
Edit
Here the Vid Marco had shared on glass tubes from scratch
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EzyXMEpq4qw

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.04.02, 14:33:46
Let's start with credibility...

P.N.Correa, MSc, PhD & A.N. Correa, HBA. This guy seems to be an expert in damn near everything including glass blowing his own discharge tubes. His friend, Arthur A. Axelrad MD, PhD, FRSC, Emeritus University Professor, University of Toronto witnessed the technology working and was very impressed.

As well the work is brilliant, impeccable showing detailed drawings including circuit diagrams and graphing all of the variables in detail. For those who can actually read they spell out the exact criteria needed to produce the effect and the mechanism for gain.

We could also note the mention of T.H.Morays work which is almost identical.
https://www.rexresearch.com/moray2/morayrer.htm

Moray was not some quack and demonstrated a circuit in a small wooden box with an output of 20,000 watts. Not some minor anomaly, not a small measurement error. Only a fool would think 20 kW of power from a device demonstrated on a table in the middle of nowhere is a measurement error imo.

Pulsed abnormal glow discharge does not have to be produced in a vacuum.

As some may know I have worked with DBD for years, first starting with manipulating gases within the discharge. "creating syn gas".

Of course DBD is used every day in molecular manipulation, the wetting of products for greater adhesion etc.

There is more that meets the eye when you delve into it and use extreamly fast switching across a special capacitance within a circuit. The glow discharge has some special properties when manipulated correctly. ;)

Regards

Mike

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.01, 13:52:16

Net energy (out − electrical in)	+32.2 kJ
Effective COP	1.18

Where does this additional energy come from ?
Will planet Earth become lighter with every joule gained?

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.04.04, 07:23:08
Where does this additional energy come from ?

I tabulated the energy inputs and outputs in my post and mentioned sources.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.04, 07:49:19
I tabulated the energy inputs and outputs in my post and mentioned sources.

If this uses the Archimedes force, plus an increase in volume with a decrease in water pressure,
plus the removal of heat from the ocean, for an even greater increase in the volume of gas, then I believe this is how the ROSH generator works.  :)

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.04.04, 14:38:24
If this uses the Archimedes force, plus an increase in volume with a decrease in water pressure,
plus the removal of heat from the ocean, for an even greater increase in the volume of gas,..

It uses all of these.

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.04.04, 14:38:24
...then I believe this is how the ROSH generator works.  :)

How does the Rosh get the gas to the bottom ?

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.04, 16:16:01

How does the Rosh get the gas to the bottom ?

I don't know.  :'(

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348919904_Rosch_innovation_perpetual_motion_machine_physical_phenomena_responsible_for_the_operation_and_its_perspectives
There were videos and much fanfare..

Seems controversy was surrounding their claims ( trickery?)

member  Evolving ape had a deep water system /concept
with Bladders  and HHO production at bottom  ....filling /expanding
To drive power generation and also utilize gas at top ( rinse/repeat)

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.04.07, 18:37:11
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348919904_Rosch_innovation_perpetual_motion_machine_physical_phenomena_responsible_for_the_operation_and_its_perspectives
There were videos and much fanfare..

Seems controversy was surrounding their claims ( trickery?)

member  Evolving ape had a deep water system /concept
with Bladders  and HHO production at bottom  ....filling /expanding
To drive power generation and also utilize gas at top ( rinse/repeat)

I found near impossible problems can have quite simple solutions, this video explains the process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTgrWmOk4q8
Solving Impossible Problems for Fun and Profit | Dan Gelbart

In the Rosch device the whole problem revolves around getting air into the bottom of the tank. Most would think of a compressor however the piston is always acting against the highest water pressure at the bottom of the tank. The water pressure acting on the area of the piston times the distance the piston moves against the pressure is the input work it must perform. Do you see the problem?, everyone is trying to use an air pumping system we already know cannot work. Ergo, it must be something else.

The next logical question should be are there other ways to move air into the tank which do not always act directly against the highest water pressure?.

There could be one solution which relates to a similar problem. The Russians wanted to build a fast torpedo but the water friction always slows it down. Their solution was to have the torpedo move through air under water. So they installed a high pressure air tank which sprays very small air bubbles in front of the torpedo so it runs through air not dense water. A prop would cavitate in the air bubbles so they used a rocket motor instead. This is a good example of working around a supposedly impossible problem.

As Viktor Schauberger explained, a piston pump is the most primitive form of pump because it always acts directly against the pressure of the thing it's trying to pump. While Schaubergers devices always acted indirectly which requires less input energy.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.04.08, 14:54:01
In the Rosch device the whole problem revolves around getting air into the bottom of the tank. Most would think of a compressor...

Maybe the gas is not air ...and that gas is not compressed/pumped from the surface to the bottom.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.04.07, 18:37:11

Seems controversy was surrounding their claims ( trickery?)

If we see that the column temperature is lower than the ambient temperature, the probability of deception will be significantly less.

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.04.09, 07:16:36
If we see that the column temperature is lower than the ambient temperature, the probability of deception will be significantly less.

Chief
I remember there was a demonstration of ROSCH tech in Germany
And Stefan went 6-7 years ago ?? ( or someone he knew went) and there were indicators that placed suspicion on self running claims ( secret source of input??)

Personally
My belief that Rob's ( member Evolvingape) concept utilizing deep water electrolysis and buoyancy ( he also had a detonation "post" electrolysis/ram pump ...which pumped water to amazing head height )
To also use gas production as commodity or power source at surface..

Rob (EvolvingApe) is a very smart fellow
Another who I hope stops in and says hello...

We definitely need options for alternative energies...
Respectfully
Chet K
PS
Yes the temperature "Delta" in device would be good for calculations and analysis of systems.
PPS
Obviously AC has also mentioned avenues worthy of attention on this topic !

I found the most common question the critics ask is why nobody can seem to reproduce the effects claimed. I mean, if FE is so simple then why haven't millions of other people discovered it?. It's an interesting problem and not what most think.

The problem is the majority of all these FE inventors did not follow other people they followed nature. They did not study what other people say and think they studied nature. So while many of these devices may look the same as our devices they do not act the same. It's kind of funny if we think about it and the critic would say, "my science will not allow this to happen", and they are correct because the device does not use their science but something else.

For example, we use straight lines but none are found in nature because straight forms are weak and curved forms strong. We whirl magnets past coils of wire to move some electrons but literally nowhere in nature do we see this. We generate large currents which wastes much of the energy as heat where most things in nature run cool. We consume in excess and generate waste to the point it becomes suicidal where nature is about balance. It's no wonder nobody has figured out how these devices work and they have learned nothing from nature. The proof is that 99% of people do the opposite of nature always acting against it.

For example, Viktor Schauberger invented a biological impeller which circulates water using 90% less energy than a propeller shown below. So why do people still use propellers?, do they not understand energy or how things actually work in nature?. How is it that an Austrian forester could invent an impeller that makes every other engineer and scientist look completely incompetent?. Viktor Schauberger didn't listen to other people he studied nature. As well, Schauberger predicted our world would continue to degenerate and become so polluted it would be uninhabitable. He nailed it imo, 20 years ago I thought nobody could be this stupid, we know better. I was wrong...

ah, but there is...

mags

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.05.07, 15:47:19
We whirl magnets past coils of wire to move some electrons but literally nowhere in nature do we see this. We generate large currents which wastes much of the energy as heat where most things in nature run cool.

Magma doesn't run cool.
The planet's core has large currents flowing in it.  The core is hot.  This current generates the magnetic field which causes Aurora Borealis and Australis with hot charged particles from the sun and the Lorentz force.
These phenomena are not man-made   ...that probably means "natural" in your vernacular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester)
Can we use this principle to make, for example, an ideal microphone that does not introduce distortion into sound vibrations?

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.05.09, 09:39:44
Can we use this principle to make, for example, an ideal microphone that does not introduce distortion into sound vibrations?

What if we can ?

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.05.07, 15:47:19
...
We generate large currents which wastes much of the energy as heat where most things in nature run cool.

Allow me a brief philosophical digression. Nothing in nature is "cool" except what's right on your doorstep. Obviously, because what's on your doorstep has to be compatible with life—otherwise, you wouldn't exist. In China, would you conclude that nearly 100% of the Earth's population is Chinese based on what you observe right there on your doorstep?
The sun, supernovas, black holes—aren't they "Nature"? Are they "cool"? And as for life, what we see of "Nature" is what hasn't been eliminated due to maladaptation; I wouldn't call that cool.
We can obviously take some ideas from nature, but humanity's strength lies, on the contrary, in culture and the artificial—both technical and artistic. Nature didn't even invent the wheel. And if our planes flapped their wings like birds, I think it would take us a long time to cross the Atlantic.
We transcend nature even though we are part of it as an animal species. Nature is very poor model and a constant danger; the more we transcend it, the more we control it, the better we understand it, and the better off we'll be. First step: write it with a lowercase "n."   :)

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.05.10, 00:32:11
What if we can ?

Then it will be good.  :)


If we begin to rotate ferromagnetic core inside fixed coil, what happens ?

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.05.10, 00:32:11
What if we can ?

The Earth's vibration (7.83Hz or multiples there of) ;)

How does a stylus pick up the vibrations on a record disk (magnetically).

Quote from: Centraflow on 2026.05.15, 18:14:39
The Earth's vibration (7.83Hz or multiples there of) ;)

How does a stylus pick up the vibrations on a record disk (magnetically).

so this earth vibration... is it mechanical, physical? Or is it the earth mag field that is vibrating?

mags

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.05.16, 00:14:10
so this earth vibration... is it mechanical, physical? Or is it the earth mag field that is vibrating?

mags

It is the electromagnetic frequency with relation to the north south magnetic poles.

The stylus in the groove of a record disc moves back and fourth as you know, this in turn moves a magnet between two coils, so generating an AC current which is then amplified by the electronics to create high voltage and current to drive a speaker.

If you design two toroids with gaps of around 10% of the circumference of each, and place them on top of one another.

These toroids are just solenoid coils and have no core as such. Form them on two cork formers because they will heat up over time.

These solenoids are made in this order, a bifilar, then a trifilar on top of that. 5 solenoids on each toroid, all wound in the same direction and the same overall length.

In the end you have two "C" shaped toroids placed one on top of the other.

To make it work is how the coils are connected.

This picks up the "7.83Hz" turbulence within the gap of the toroids. The frequency being ELF, is open to a wide band of reception, that is kHz or even MHz because we are not dealing with RF as such, this is not a radio receiver but a magnetic receiver.

The inter-reaction of two frequencies which sweep changing magnetic fields which run "similar" to "standing waves" but here are MSW (magnetic standing waves), pick up the turbulance and that is amplified.

It is a very sensitive "pickup".

Magnetic fields produce "current", this is a current amplifier. To amplify voltage as we know, is not a problem, current WAS when in phase together, so DC is the output.

Mike

PS I have used the 7.83Hz as a reference, it does not have to be that, 7.8125kHz will work as well, what they call the audio magic frequency!! But really you can take a reference frequency as you want with ref: to the size of coils you are using.

You see in a stylus you can move a magnet between coils or move the coils between two magnets, it is the speed at which it moves that creates the current 8)

"If you design two toroids with gaps of around 10% of the circumference of each, and place them on top of one another."

Hey Mike

its the on top of each other that stumps a bit.  like one flat on the table and the other flat on top of the other with gaps in the same orientation?

Mags

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.05.16, 20:21:12
"If you design two toroids with gaps of around 10% of the circumference of each, and place them on top of one another."

Hey Mike

its the on top of each other that stumps a bit.  like one flat on the table and the other flat on top of the other with gaps in the same orientation?

Mags

But the magnetic fields in each gap!!!

Think of how a halo antenna is configured!!

It will work as just 1 toroid but only in one orientation. Re: SM turning over his toroid and it stopped working!!

Quote from: Centraflow on 2026.05.16, 20:45:34
But the magnetic fields in each gap!!!

Think of how a halo antenna is configured!!

It will work as just 1 toroid but only in one orientation. Re: SM turning over his toroid and it stopped working!!

just for the 'flux' of it  ;), is the earths field in reference to the pickup point, expanding outward and back? or are we looking at something different?

also, any clue as to what is driving the 7.8hz?

mags

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.05.16, 23:56:27
just for the 'flux' of it  ;), is the earths field in reference to the pickup point, expanding outward and back? or are we looking at something different?

also, any clue as to what is driving the 7.8hz?

mags

I was being a bit criptic over the 7.83Hz.
The earths mag field is weak but BIG. It is a static field in terms of a magnet, so how to take power from it!
Well you do things in reverse, you vibrate the coils inside the magnetic field.

To do that you move very quickly compressed magnetic fields, NN OR SS, but they must not happen in always the same place, that place is moving at a rapid pace back and fourth.

This is what happens inside a pickup head.

I will not go into more detail here on this open thread.

The attached shows the basics.

The coils together form what I call a "flux capacitor"  :D

things...

mags

Mags,


Just a bit of explanation ;)

Think of the three ends of the coils in the gap as speakers in a room, and the red dot an imaginary mic.

the part in that last bit you have shown, that at first hit me as why close the ends of the windings at the terminal, shorted. what would be good about that? there must be a purpose.

but things start to make 'some' sense on the idea of those windings, shorted, being labeled as a 'core', not just windings 5 and 6. whats got me going a bit is the idea of having a core of a completely different function than a magnetic core. so lets say we drive one of the outer windings and these shorted, dual winding core, are gunna carry a load of current.  heat.  2 bifilar windings shorted and induced. the effect on the drive winding would allso be droping a load of current because the, simply put, the secondaries are shorted.   just initial ideas, hypothesis.   now to think about the capacitor side of it. i dont think the induced shorted windings 5 and 6, are causing the capacitance to charge. cant see how. with some diodes maybe.  but when we consider what effect inducing 5 and 6 has, would there be a difference in how it behaves, if the capacitance were charged vs not charged?   again, just initial thoughts. 

the idea of it just being a capacitor, as in storage then use purpose, then why not just a cap that is not a core?  so there is some other thing going on there i think..  its an unusual thing.  but im thinking it has a use that may be very unconventional, in a good way.

mags

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.05.20, 06:02:10
the part in that last bit you have shown, that at first hit me as why close the ends of the windings at the terminal, shorted. what would be good about that? there must be a purpose.

but things start to make 'some' sense on the idea of those windings, shorted, being labeled as a 'core', not just windings 5 and 6. whats got me going a bit is the idea of having a core of a completely different function than a magnetic core. so lets say we drive one of the outer windings and these shorted, dual winding core, are gunna carry a load of current.  heat.  2 bifilar windings shorted and induced. the effect on the drive winding would allso be droping a load of current because the, simply put, the secondaries are shorted.   just initial ideas, hypothesis.   now to think about the capacitor side of it. i dont think the induced shorted windings 5 and 6, are causing the capacitance to charge. cant see how. with some diodes maybe.  but when we consider what effect inducing 5 and 6 has, would there be a difference in how it behaves, if the capacitance were charged vs not charged?   again, just initial thoughts. 

the idea of it just being a capacitor, as in storage then use purpose, then why not just a cap that is not a core?  so there is some other thing going on there i think..  its an unusual thing.  but im thinking it has a use that may be very unconventional, in a good way.

mags

The core is a capacitor which is across 2 coils in series where there are mosfet drains connected as in a common source amp. These switch one after the other, so one is negative and the other is positive at the drains.
The core capacitance is low, so place a 20uF cap in parallel with the core (across the drains).
So we have a resonant circuit here, LC.

The frequency of this does not matter as long as it is lower than the mosfet switching frequency.

What has changed in the core is the charge and discharge speed of the core, and what happens to the obtained magnatic field in that core capacitance in relation to the over wound solenoid coils magnetic field.😉

This will be the last atm of this work on an open forum.

The attached is partly made up from a patent application by myself and two others, for the control of the heat generated within a "flux capacitor" due to the induction created by this unit. Please do not ask for information of the application, it will not be given due to the anonymity of the other two "employed" persons.

I foregot this one.