OverUnity Research

Does anyone know anything about this 6 KW Free Energy Generator?  I was just surfing & found it.


http://www.fuellesspower.com/9_sp500_generator.htm
.

I saw this device posted on a Russian site discussing the Kapanadze Generators.  I could not understand if it is another version by Kapanadze, a replication, or a separate device.

Quote from: AllPhase on 2011.01.14, 01:54:13
Does anyone know anything about this 6 KW Free Energy Generator?  I was just surfing & found it.
http://www.fuellesspower.com/9_sp500_generator.htm
.

This "fluelless power" is a reigiously-based outfit that was/is called,"Creative Science".   Everything they have is for sale, and they're like Witts and Methernitha---Money, Money, Money.

Some of their plans are available on the 'Wbn, but I don't have the addresses now.

--Lee

They look like pure thieves and the FBI should set up a department that runs sting operations to bust people like this and convict them and send them to jail.

It seems like they are selling plans for a simple AC generator, I did not see any claims of OU.  You will need a motor to turn the generator, just like they show in the video. 

If inventors wanted money, they wouldn't sell plans of a working machine that every one can then spread with no money return for the authors. They patent and produce it.

When plans are sold, one can be sure it is a scam.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.30, 09:34:50
If inventors wanted money, they wouldn't sell plans of a working machine that every one can then spread with no money return for the authors. They patent and produce it.

Then, having done that, they would be under the scrutiny of the National Security agencies.  Not a good idea.

Quote
When plans are sold, one can be sure it is a scam.

They can easily take Internet information and reword it to something different, then sell it for a profit.

--Lee

Has anyone ever thought of the fact that the energy industry is only a small percentage of the economy?  Facing the energy industry you have thousands and thousands of companies that consume energy and would love to be able to purchase it at a much lower price, or even for free.

If there was a true free energy device or you could build power plants based on a free energy device and sell electricity at a ridiculously low price you would have millions of customers knocking at your door.

The notion that a free energy device would instantly be repressed by the MIB or the economy would collapse is simplistic and has evolved into a caricature of itself.  You just ask the producers of aluminum if they would like cheaper electricity and you will see what they say.

Free energy does not necessarily mean the collapse of the economy.  It could simply reduce the energy component in the cost of goods and services and as a result reduce the price of everything.  That's the simplistic argument from the other side.  So I suppose the answer is somewhere in between the two.

One thing for sure, entire industries disappear and the world goes on.  If the oil and coal industries were reduced in size by 90% they would still stay in business.  There were once millions of elevator operators, telegraph operators, switchboard operators, etc, and they are all gone.  Every now and then an entire industry vanishes.

So, some food for thought.

MileHigh

@MileHigh
Concerning Reply #7,
Yes, I agree with a great deal of your post.  Old industries become obsolete and new ones become the "latest great thing" to come along.  Agreed as far as it goes.

However, T. Henry Moray tried to do what you suggest and invent an astoundingly powerful solid state electrical generator and was essentially silenced for his efforts.  His invented (approximate) transistor was reinvented by big business after he left the industry.  He comes to my mind first.  There were others, I suppose.

--Lee

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.31, 01:12:10
...

The notion that a free energy device would instantly be repressed by the MIB or the economy would collapse is simplistic and has evolved into a caricature of itself.
...

The "MIB" are not themselves the "repressers"
they're simply the muscle which is flexed for
stubborn cases or where a discreet example
must be made.

Those who make the decisions are always in
the shadows and never reveal themselves
but they are able to influence and/or persuade
any level of government.

Of course the economy would not collapse
if Free Energy were permitted to become a part
of it - it would flourish as never before.  But at
a great cost to those who wish to exploit the
masses by any means possible.

The power to corrupt and all that goes with it
is extremely pleasurable to those who have the
resources.  They will do whatever they deem
necessary to keep it that way...

Has anyone noticed that government corruption
is on the rise?  The "game" goes on.

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.31, 01:12:10
...
If there was a true free energy device or you could build power plants based on a free energy device and sell electricity at a ridiculously low price you would have millions of customers knocking at your door.

The notion that a free energy device would instantly be repressed by the MIB or the economy would collapse is simplistic and has evolved into a caricature of itself.  You just ask the producers of aluminum if they would like cheaper electricity and you will see what they say.
...

This is good sense, mh.
The idea of conspiracy against FE is ridiculous. There is no need for conspiracy. If I was a captain in oil industry, I would do strictly nothing against claims of any kind of devices providing free energy, I would laugh: we see that obviously nobody is able to duplicate only one of the hundreds (thousands?) of perpetual machines that pseudo-inventors or swindlers affirm and/or believe to have built. Is there anyone here who is his own electricity provider and doesn't subscribe to a company?
The idea of conspiracy is a psychological deviance coming from the wishful thinking of believers, in a self persuading mechanism that their dreams are already a reality when they are still only dreams.

Quote
Free energy does not necessarily mean the collapse of the economy.  
...
MileHigh

Not only it won't collapse the industry, but it will terribly boost the industry. Not only all electric devices will be to renew because everybody will want self-powered equipments without wires and without batteries to charge, but also a fantastic number of new applications will appear, that can't be implemented by the today technology either by lack of autonomous energy generators of sufficient power in a low volume or for question of high energy price.
There will be a tremendous industry development, probably at least as important as the development that followed the electrification of the countries at the beginning of the 20th century.

QuoteFree energy does not necessarily mean the collapse of the economy.  
...
MileHigh

I am not sure where you 2 live, must be an oil rich country, but here in the UK Fuel tax is enormous, if we all woke up tomorrow and stopped filling our car tanks with government taxed petrol and switched to a device that could be built in a day that cost £100 to make or buy, i am willing to bet it would collapse more than the economy.

QuoteThe notion that a free energy device would instantly be repressed by the MIB or the economy would collapse is simplistic and has evolved into a caricature of itself.  You just ask the producers of aluminum if they would like cheaper electricity and you will see what they say.

and in this case have you ever heard of the saying 'Against National Interest'

The whole system is bent on stopping any technology from coming close to fossil fuels, that is cheap, safe and bypasses taxes.

Look at the electric car, and the NiMh battery, in my mind this technology could not fully eliminate fossil fuels because we still need to charge them, but an electric car does not need filling up with taxed petrol (which is a tax on mileage per quantity used)

Batteries allow unlimited nontaxable millage, and it is for this reason you will not see a viable electric car without a switch to GPS pay per millage tax.

Look at the large scale NiMh patent story

Texaco bought the patents and ever since then it's been virtually impossible to be able to use them.

QuoteOvonic NiMH batteries were used in the 1998 Chevrolet S-10 EV and the 1999 General Motors EV1, as well as many other hybrid vehicles in production today.
Patent encumbrance
Main article: Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries

In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. On October 10, 2001, Texaco purchased General Motors' share in GM Ovonics, and Chevron completed its acquisition of Texaco six days later. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[7]

In her book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, published in February 2007, Sherry Boschert argues that large-format NiMH batteries are commercially viable but that Cobasys refuses to sell or license them to small companies or individuals. Boschert reveals that Cobasys accepts only very large orders for these batteries. When Boschert conducted her research, major auto makers showed little interest in NiMH batteries. Since no other companies were capable of producing large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing any NiMH batteries for automotive purposes.[8]

In December 2006, Cobasys and General Motors announced that they had signed a contract under which Cobasys would provide NiMH batteries for the Saturn Aura hybrid sedan.[9] Although announced, the car was later scrapped and Saturn has been shut down. In March 2007, General Motors announced that it would use Cobasys NiMH batteries in the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu hybrid as well. Cobasys remains unwilling to produce and sell NiMH batteries in smaller quantities to individuals interested in building or retrofitting their own plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). In 2009 Mercedes had planned to release an ML450 hybrid SUV in the United States, but Chevron, the parent company, pulled funding from Cobasys and the batteries were not delivered.[10] On July 14, 2009 Cobasys was bought by Samsung-Bosch.[11] Although mistaken as owning the intellectual property to the large NiMH battery packs, according to CEO Tom Neslage they merely have an exclusive licensing deal with Chevron.[12]

Hmmm...

Always doubters.

I can say with relative certainty that most claimed MIB activities are a coverup for fraudulent claims.

The next group would be those simply beaten to death by their peers. What we call the 'MIB' don't give a rat's behind about the great majority of claims as they know they will be beaten into submission by their peers or business interests.

If all the above can't be applied then there is "U.S. PATENT LAW: TITLE 35, PART II, CHAPTER 17, SECTIONS 181-188". Of course, many will doubt the reality of such activity -- until they receive a notice under said sections with their name on it.  :P

Another thought....

Maybe filing for a patent is the safe bet. If your invention falls under the above rules the 'MIB' have a legal method of performing a cover-up. If you don't file for a patent illegal methods may be needed  ;D

@exnihiloest

QuoteThe idea of conspiracy against FE is ridiculous. There is no need for conspiracy. If I was a captain in oil industry, I would do strictly nothing against claims of any kind of devices providing free energy, I would laugh: we see that obviously nobody is able to duplicate only one of the hundreds (thousands?) of perpetual machines that pseudo-inventors or swindlers affirm and/or believe to have built.

Obviously you are not a businessman, for example if you were a CEO making 20 million a year and a technology came about which could put your income at risk I can assure you the last thing you would be doing is laughing. It is very easy to sit back and pretend we would do this or that however the reality of what people do has been proven time and time again ---- we always act in our own best interest.
As well I would not call what occurs a conspiracy persay I would call it the Microsoft factor, that is when a corporation peddling an antiquated inferior technology dumps massive amounts of money into marketing and has enough capital to simply buy out most all the competition thereby limiting the choices the consumer has and increasing their profits. Now I hope you could not honestly believe billion dollar corporations such as Eveready and Duracell (battery makers) would allow a compact self-charging system to ever enter the market, it would be self-destructive, downright stupid and bad business. Pretending any business person in their right mind would just roll over and play dead when confronted with a competitive technology is absurd, they will do whatever it takes to ensure their profit margins will continue and follow the corporate charter which is preserve the corporation and show a profit which are one and the same.
Regards
AC

QuoteI can say with relative certainty that most claimed MIB activities are a cover-up for fraudulent claims.

I agree totally WW

Any viable device would not get an airing, what better way can you have of covering up real free energy devices by allowing the hoaxes to sit around and be openly researched and discussed, this causes frustration and allows doubt to manifest, Same happened with UFOs, they encouraged UFO reports and hoaxes and then used this as a shield to hide conventional high altitude craft during spy missions.

Why hide a working device by using force when you have a whole industry that would get together to raise money to buy it up and shut it away from use by the mass population. Same thing happened to the TPU by UEC corp. If the TPU was a fake then why not disclose all the available information on the way it was hoaxed or the reasons why it was not a viable device, why the secrecy.

What if an OU device was able to actually create energy by some unknown means, and the device could be configured to produce an large quabtity of energy in one catastropic event - resulting in a detonation.  Then add that it is not complicated to make, and the materials are readily available.  Now everyone can make a powerful bomb without access to explosives, or radioactive materials, or chemical constituents.

What happens to infrastrucure when you have your own energy and explosives?

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.31, 07:48:03

QuoteMH:  "The notion that a free energy device would instantly be repressed by the MIB or the economy would collapse is simplistic and has evolved into a caricature of itself."

This is good sense, mh.
The idea of conspiracy against FE is ridiculous.

  Interesting that the same who mock the idea of a conspiracy against FE are the same ones who generally deride the notion of FE.  Coincidence?

  In my observation, including what happened to Moray's device at the hands of a gov-ment agent, that tells me that government serves today to protect the profits of big business, and vice versa.

Quote"In April, 1939, a department of the United States Government on its own initiative, sent a gentleman to Salt Lake City who had been introduced to me as Dr. Frazer. This gentleman was in the Moray laboratory for a total of about two months spending hours each day making tests and taking pictures of the Moray Radiant Energy discoveries... and gathering information for written reports to his superiors in Washington, D.C.

"Then one morning in Henry's laboratory — totally unexpectedly — Frazer took a hammer and smashed the radiant energy device.  He said "Now I cannot ask for any more tests!" and "walked out".
Dad refused to cooperate further with Felix. He discontinued any active direct correspondence with the government... He insisted that the government furnished equipment be taken out of the laboratory and that the government withdraw from the research."

[Later] Henry wrote the following and sent it to Washington: "I wish I could have someone come out here from our Government who believes in the strength of our laws, who believes [in] the Government that Washington and Lincoln stood for...
"someone who believes in the continued strength and protection of our United States laws, including the patent laws, and with faith in the preservation of the principles and the Spirit of '76..."

In 1943, "a man named Robert B. Perish came to Salt Lake. I personally heard him say to Henry, "Either come back to the government or we will liquidate you.""
"As a result of Perish's visit and delivery of a threat of liquidation by the Government, Dr. Moray began to refuse to see anyone connected with the Government. He buried himself completely in ...therapeutic research."
http://www.only1egg-productions.org/AltSci/SOE/Sea_Of_Energy_5thEd_Chapter6.htm

  Yes DeepCut, and we see examples that US/UK governments will use even obstruction or classification of patent applications to prevent emergence of competing technologies, those which might compete with Big Oil, for example.   Chevron (Rockefeller) was mentioned above.   

  Listen, I have personally experienced the repeated threats -- and the bribe attempts -- of the "MIB" (related to my 9/11 research, not to alt-energy research -yet).
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/  -- I was "early-retired" at age 57, at the peak of my university career really.


  Let us not be naive.  It is one thing to develop alt-energy (difficult in itself).  It will be another -- at least as difficult IMO -- to dodge threats /and/ bribes/offers -- in the effort to get a nascent energy source out to the people.  To "empower people" rather than enriching the power-elite, that is the ultimate challenge.

PhysicsProf,

I've been meaning to ask your opinion of the Farnsworth Fusor as a potential new energy source.

Take about 37 minutes to watch this most
interesting and enlightening video which
goes a long way in explaining what the
people are up against:

Urban Survival:  Defense Against the Psychopath (http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/socio-economics/the-art-of-urban-survival.html)

The Corporate World and its Governments
are in the hands of those who are the best
at manipulation...

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.08.31, 19:49:11
  Yes DeepCut, and we see examples that US/UK governments will use even obstruction or classification of patent applications to prevent emergence of competing technologies, those which might compete with Big Oil, for example.   Chevron (Rockefeller) was mentioned above.   

  Listen, I have personally experienced the repeated threats -- and the bribe attempts -- of the "MIB" (related to my 9/11 research, not to alt-energy research -yet).
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/  -- I was "early-retired" at age 57, at the peak of my university career really.


  Let us not be naive.  It is one thing to develop alt-energy (difficult in itself).  It will be another -- at least as difficult IMO -- to dodge threats /and/ bribes/offers -- in the effort to get a nascent energy source out to the people.  To "empower people" rather than enriching the power-elite, that is the ultimate challenge.

Faced with such opposition, how does one go about getting "a nascent energy source out to the people"?

Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.31, 21:23:53
Faced with such opposition, how does one go about getting "a nascent energy source out to the people"?

 Yes.  Some ideas in outline form, developed in discussions these past several months -- and certainly open for comment and improvement:

0.  Open-source development without media hype for as long as possible.  This means:  no patents sought and no media publicity in early stages.  (Notice how many energy enthusiasts ignore or violate this step; Pons and F. come to mind.)

1.  Seek for distributed production in as many towns and countries as possible during the early stages of production.  Build and go viral quickly.
2.  Fair-profits for local builders, quietly making and selling to neighbors, friends.  

3.  Recognize that this is a silent, peaceful revolution... and will eventually be noticed and attacked by an establishment which seeks to maintain profits and status-quo.

4.  When the production is diversified and well established --- OR as opposition begins to attempt to squash the movement, THEN agree that on a certain hour, producers around the world will seek favorable publicity in their local media.  This is where prizes should be announced and publicized.  With replicators and homeowners around the world attesting to the success of the product, it should be impossible to stop everywhere, and should keep spreading.

5.  Getting political candidates, environmental and other groups to recognize and espouse the nascent energy systems should provide a further boost.

6.  Expect and allow for copy-cat manufacturing, to bring the price down and availability up, world-wide.  At some point, the local manufacturers become distributors and help maintain the new system of energy.

7.  With homes then communities going off-grid and driving in zero-fossil-fuel vehicles, the power literally becomes decentralized.  Encourage political power, food production and water sources likewise to de-centralize and come back to the local level as much as possible.  

Again, what is proposed is a peaceful, new-energy driven revolution, empowering the people and families of the world.

Think Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington... men with a vision and an evolving plan...  that worked, with the help of God.

The attached photo was taken in about 2002 -- I'm the guy on your right, and my friend is from Mali taking solar funnel cookers back home with him.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.31, 20:30:21
PhysicsProf,

I've been meaning to ask your opinion of the Farnsworth Fusor as a potential new energy source.

A friend, Prof George Miley, looked at this extensively -- and concluded that it would work as a neutron source, but not as an energy-production source.

DeepCut -- Any energy source can be used for evil as well as for good, starting with fire.  The idea is to get it out to as many homes world wide for peaceful energy production as possible.  I suppose that legislation at the level of individual states should be sought, to help insure that this nascent energy form would be used for good.

Peterae:

Taxes are in a way an intangible thing that can be applied in any form and anywhere.  Fuel and sin taxes carry a big chunk of the load for paying for government.  You reduce energy costs and you also reduce government energy costs so they also need less funds.  I am not an economist but more educated people could look at hypothetical situations like this.  You can look back to pre-1973 where the cost of energy was proportionally much lower and then the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks took place and all the world's economies reacted and adjusted to the change.  These things can also be modeled.

So who says that reducing the cost of energy all of a sudden makes everything collapse?  The government can put a high tax on milk and soft drinks if they wanted to to make up the difference.  Again, factoring in the fact that government expenses will also go down.

QuoteThe whole system is bent on stopping any technology from coming close to fossil fuels, that is cheap, safe and bypasses taxes.

Well, my argument is that many people are on a one-track-mind with respect to fuel costs and lumping taxes onto them.  Ultimately the government has to have a revenue stream to keep afloat, and it doesn't have to come from energy, booze, and cigarettes.  Some of might think of this as a zero sum game, but not necessarily so.  The government will need significantly less revenue if energy is cheap.

QuoteBatteries allow unlimited nontaxable millage, and it is for this reason you will not see a viable electric car without a switch to GPS pay per millage tax.

You are being too simplistic.  You seem to be implying that you can't tax the usage of electric cars.  That's ridiculous, you can charge a tax every time you charge a vehicle at a charging station.

The big blurb you quoted about NiMH batteries is forgetting the central issue:  It's not about the batteries it's about where you get the energy to charge the batteries:  hydro, oil, coal, natural gas, nuke, or renewable.  And, you cannot forget that renewable is too small right now to meet our energy needs.  Today as we speak your typical electric car is powered by hydrocarbon fuels or nukes.

MileHigh

I like:

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.08.31, 23:06:42
Build and go viral quickly.

The nascent energy source is all around us, at any point in the universe.  

All knowledge comes with responsibility and as irresponsible as people are with what they have, I do not expect this to be any different, initially.  Things settle down eventually and reach a balance.  If the US was out of Middle-Eastern affairs, there is no reason for terrorist there to attack the US or its interest.

Infrastructure cannot dissolve, or even change, for many decades even with a new, free, energy source.  Hopefully, by the time Big Money and his brother Big Business get involved, anyone who can build one will know how.

 ;)

Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.09.01, 00:07:06
I like:

The nascent energy source is all around us, at any point in the universe.  

All knowledge comes with responsibility and as irresponsible as people are with what they have, I do not expect this to be any different, initially.  Things settle down eventually and reach a balance.  If the US was out of Middle-Eastern affairs, there is no reason for terrorist there to attack the US or its interest.

Infrastructure cannot dissolve, or even change, for many decades even with a new, free, energy source.  Hopefully, by the time Big Money and his brother Big Business get involved, anyone who can build one will know how.

A few words from Moray King that inspired me back in the day (1989). From "Tapping the Zero Point Energy"

Peterae:

In my opinion the TPU is not real.  It's just another tall tale in the free energy realm.  I know and acknowledge that there is a disconnect between myself and most of the people around here with respect to what you believe is true.  So the TPU was never "hidden" it simply never existed.  Note how easy it is to "hide" something that never existed in the first place.

Same thing for the T. Henry Moray story.  So today, it's just a web site that sells books.  What about the Muller generator web site?  The daughters are carrying the torch, so where is the working device?  I suppose that you could buy things on their website.

The related issue is that if there was a working device then it would be a story like Ponds and Fleishman in 1989.  You can't pretend that the people and stories on the "Top 10 List" are all suppressed or they are people or tiny companies with working devices.  It just doesn't jive, that scenario is impossible.  It's like Romero when he said he would like to 'retire' and just make simple over unity toys for kids.  Another impossible scenario that people read and perhaps envision as a possibility.

DeepCut:

QuoteI don't know about MiB but i do know about saudi aramco. In a documentary one of their top people said they were doing what they could to discourage the electric car, it was very surprising to see such a bold statement so openly made.

I suppose that I will play devil's advocate here:  Why wouldn't you want to act in your own interest?  It's a legal business.  People need cars and some people need cars with the performance that comes from gasoline.  They are competing for a slice of the pie and they know that their slice will get smaller as time goes on.  It's not like it's evil.  The petrochemical industry employs millions of hard-working people that have families too you know.  Do you really hate their product?  How about going a month with no hot shower in the morning and no power at all in the kitchen - just in the kitchen.  See how you like it.  There are millions people that work to deliver that product to you and they have rights too.  Even though they have rights, they can wither on the vine if something better and cheaper comes along.  In the tech sector there are countless stories of companies that rise and fall in ten years or less.  It's that good old economic Darwinism at play.

PhysicsProf:

I don't believe anybody in the government is seriously paying attention to alternative energy in the sense that it is understood on these forums.  Take the generic term "magnet motors" for example, Muller, Bedini, the whole lot - nobody but nobody in government pays any attention to that.  You may as well be hobbyists playing with model rockets as far as they are concerned.

That's not to say that some technologies aren't kept secret for national security purposes.  But that is a whole other realm.  For example, should the way to manufacture a neutron bomb be kept secret?  I think in the 1970s Jimmy Carter killed the development program.  That's a nasty doomsday-style nuclear bomb.  That sure as hell should be kept secret.

MileHigh

When you finally shit-can the dogma of "The Big Bang" and all attempts at increasing the efficiency of force application beyond break-even( i.e. induction), you will wonder how creation happened and what forces and laws had to be involved. 

You may conclude that these same forces and laws must surely exist today, just like all of the other forces and laws.  Then you will seek these force and laws out, to understand how energy can be created.

If you say that energy cannot be created then all we see is fiction and could never exist because it could never be created in the first place.  Of course, this is absurd, everything we see is real, it right there! 

So, it was somehow created by force and laws just like the things we create to improve our way of life.  Creation has to be quite normal, and necessary. 

The logical question is: "How does one create energy?"

Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.08.31, 14:25:03
@exnihiloest Obviously you are not a businessman, for example if you were a CEO making 20 million a year and a technology came about which could put your income at risk I can assure you the last thing you would be doing is laughing.
...

Yes, if I was a CEO making 20 million a year and a technology came about which could put my income at risk the last thing I would be doing is laughing.
But it is not the case. I'm afraid that you misinterpreted my message. I would be laughing because I know that there is not one of such technologies that works (except perhaps Rossi's cold fusion), in spite of hundreds of claims and patents.

If one of them worked, we wouldn't be here searching for them or verifying them!

Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.09.01, 02:54:20
...
The logical question is: "How does one create energy?"

We observe that every form of energy comes from an imbalance between a start and end situation.The imbalance is reduced when energy is extracted (energy from nuclear or chemical reactions, from electric or gravitational potential difference, from temperature gradient...).
For instance, oil energy comes from the imbalance between natural oil in earth and burnt oil. The final situation always differs from the start point. We can infer that we can't create energy but only extract energy from imbalanced situations to be found in nature.

An objection to this point of view is a Maxwell's demon. With a Maxwell demon, we reduces the temperature of a single heat bath: the imbalance is due to the kinetic energy of particles which is lower after the energy extraction than before. And when the energy that we gained is used, it can degrade again in heat and so we could loop the cycle.
This process is not yet experimentally verified (and theoretically discarded). If this speculation works, the emergent idea is that the imbalance principle for energy extraction is still required, but that we could use the imbalance of two different physical quantities in a cycle, each one being depleted while the other is replenished.
I doubt that it works, but possibly near processes functioning in an open manner instead of a closed one, i.e. using the ambient thermal bath of the universe or other sources as the ZPF, could perhaps work.

The whole idea of suppression in this day and age is comical.  Even a powerful industry can do nothing to stop competing innovation.  Think about telecommunications - specifically, telephone.  How powerful do you think telephone companies were 20-30 years ago.  And there is zero they could do to stop the too-cheap-to-meter Internet communications that now supplant the telephone industry.

All that's going to happen with cheap/free energy is prices of many things will drop.  So what?  This has happened many times in the past, and has generally been regarded as a good thing.  New computers used to cost $2000.  Now you can get a laptop for $300 or less.  The world has not collapsed.

Also, I have to comment about patents.  It seems on this board and those like it, people have a gross misunderstanding of how patent law works in practice.  Generally, nobody cares about what patents may be out there before producing something.  There are some notable exceptions, like in the drug industry, where there are truly some innovations that are worth protecting, but the patent landscape at this point has morphed into something where the lawyers make money and big companies keep battle chests of patents in a "mutually assured destruction" type of situation.  Basically, just about any new thing you can come up with will violate, or allegedly violate some patent.  Software patents are notorious for this, and there are often hundreds of patents that cover basically the same thing.  So companies just basically have the approach - if you sue me, I will sue you.  So peace is kept.  Of course, there are patent trolls who produce nothing and use purchased patents to sue others.

Anyway, my point is that startups don't care about patents, because they are generally judgment proof, so they are not a target of patent trolls or of practicing patent holders.  So this concept of someone getting a patent on free energy and this being a mechanism to shut out other inventors is nonsense.  A patent does not enforce itself.  The USPTO enforces no patents.  Often, the patent holder will have no money to enforce a patent or won't even know his patent is being infringed on.  And this is in industries where things actually work.

Now imagine a fake industry where perpetual motion devices are made.  Devices that do not work as intended.  Do you really think anyone is going to give a rat's ass about a patent on a bullshit perpetual motion device?

My specialty is in the water treatment field. This year I am planning on patenting a new device that will be used in water purification systems and I estimate that within 4 years, it will become a required component for the secure usage of the very popular reverse osmosis systems. The device is not possible to produce at home and there is only one company in the world that can produce the main material for this device to do what it will do. Why am I patenting it? Because it is the only way to attract the commitment of the greatest distribution channels in this field, so they know that their implication in marketing it will not be circumvented. This is regular business with a regular humdrum widget. I am also working on a device that will eventually render many forms of standard water treatment obsolete from usage of chemicals, salts and other oxidation materials.

The Canadian Army has a portable water purification system, first used in Bosnia, that has four modules weighing less then 200lbs each mountable in 20 minutes and can produce enough potable water for 1000 soldiers anywhere in the world and in any type of water, all based on my designs, so I do know about water treatment. When I designed this it was for a Defense tender. Once they got my plans, they decided to cancel the tender saying the expense was too high for now. They asked me if they could use my plans for the next tender. I said yes only if our company was on the list of next tenders and they agreed. We, never heard back from them until I saw this documentary on Bosnia showing the Canadian Army unloading a NEW WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM built exactly like my designs. Turns out they sole sourced it to another Canadian company that was recently purchased by GE. How convenient. Well now that I know, my lawyer will be on this. That is business. Lots of shlepping around.

But in the OU "business", I know enough about business to know you cannot make a business with an OU device no matter how long you worked to develop it, regardless of how much money you spent to experiment in so many ways, or, how much loss of family life you experience or no matter how many trials and tribulations you lived through to accomplish this ultimate task. Trying to sell this is like having the only tap on the water supply, you will be quickly overrun by the world itself. It is simply too big for any one guy or any one company to try and even start to satisfy anyone. The only way YOU CAN SURVIVE bringing a new energy source into this world is by giving it freely to everyone at the same time, so no one can say they did not know and accuse you of selective disclosure. then you are cleared and do not have to answer to, or meet up to, anyone's expectations. Let the world figure it out while you are free to look further ahead. It is so simple, but yet, guys have a knack for over complicating things to the extent that they eventually get sidetracked into the money game where the rules of engagement include secrecy, investor rights, working in a micro environment, plus you are left to design black box OU systems that only you know how it works, where you will end up living a life of paranoia and false sense of importance like the "I am God syndrome".

The challenge is in the hunt. Just make sure you are not the one being hunted.

As for tech being used in destructive ways, too bad. That's part of being on a rock with so many crazies. But once the question of free energy is harmonized, the need for wars and greed will eventually be irrelevant and living will be top on everyone's list. The Bigs will simply wither away along with their domination based doctrines.

But........before Mr. and Mrs. George Benson can put an FE device in their home, it will still have to be approved. FE does not absolve you of having the necessary safety approvals.

I'd like to be in the office of the UL and CSA guys when they receive their first application for approvals of an OU device with a little note stating "Just use the toaster guidelines". lol

First you have to have the vision and hopefully the gizmo will be simple enough to catch on and be replicated easily. That would be what i call a "Level 1" device. That is the ideal first OU implementation. lol Just like that Mehess guy is supposed to do a demo in mid Sept.

wattsup

Quote from: wattsup on 2011.09.01, 14:20:35
[snip]
But in the OU "business", I know enough about business to know you cannot make a business with an OU device no matter how long you worked to develop it, regardless of how much money you spent to experiment in so many ways, or, how much loss of family life you experience or no matter how many trials and tribulations you lived through to accomplish this ultimate task. Trying to sell this is like having the only tap on the water supply, you will be quickly overrun by the world itself. It is simply too big for any one guy or any one company to try and even start to satisfy anyone. The only way YOU CAN SURVIVE bringing a new energy source into this world is by giving it freely to everyone at the same time, so no one can say they did not know and accuse you of selective disclosure. then you are cleared and do not have to answer to, or meet up to, anyone's expectations. Let the world figure it out while you are free to look further ahead. It is so simple, but yet, guys have a knack for over complicating things to the extent that they eventually get sidetracked into the money game where the rules of engagement include secrecy, investor rights, working in a micro environment, plus you are left to design black box OU systems that only you know how it works, where you will end up living a life of paranoia and false sense of importance like the "I am God syndrome".

The challenge is in the hunt. Just make sure you are not the one being hunted.

As for tech being used in destructive ways, too bad. That's part of being on a rock with so many crazies. But once the question of free energy is harmonized, the need for wars and greed will eventually be irrelevant and living will be top on everyone's list. The Bigs will simply wither away along with their domination based doctrines.

But........before Mr. and Mrs. George Benson can put an FE device in their home, it will still have to be approved. FE does not absolve you of having the necessary safety approvals.

I'd like to be in the office of the UL and CSA guys when they receive their first application for approvals of an OU device with a little note stating "Just use the toaster guidelines". lol

First you have to have the vision and hopefully the gizmo will be simple enough to catch on and be replicated easily. That would be what i call a "Level 1" device. That is the ideal first OU implementation. lol Just like that Mehess guy is supposed to do a demo in mid Sept.

wattsup

Some good points, wattsup.  Agreed that "The only way YOU CAN SURVIVE bringing a new energy source into this world is by giving it freely to everyone at the same time, " and I outlined ways to do this.  

But how do you go about getting safety approvals?  and can this be done with a home-made device, not patented nor made by a "big company" like GE?
Say a guy wanted to buy a Tesla coil made by a neighbor -- does it have to have safety approvals?   in Japan, Hungary, etc. also?

PS -- how do you like GE, then?

PPS -- I pointed out Bill Mehess's errors in calculation, that he was actually getting less than a MILLIwatt of power out of his secretive device...  I don't expect much from his demonstration as far as an energy solution, sigh...

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.09.01, 14:46:40
...But how do you go about getting safety approvals?  and can this be done with a home-made device, not patented nor made by a "big company" like GE?
Say a guy wanted to buy a Tesla coil made by a neighbor -- does it have to have safety approvals?   in Japan, Hungary, etc. also?

I'm very confident, as a Calif. resident, in this over-regulated State, you'll need to have the device certified as safe by a competent rating agency.   That way these potential OU divices are controlled by the Gov't.

--Lee

Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.09.01, 17:12:24
I'm very confident, as a Calif. resident, in this over-regulated State, you'll need to have the device certified as safe by a competent rating agency.   That way these potential OU divices are controlled by the Gov't.

--Lee

I did not know California was interested in regulating carts before horses.

Quote from: DeepCut on 2011.09.01, 13:12:25
I disagree, here is just one study of the matter which highlights more than a few instances :

http://www.mttlr.org/voleleven/saunders.pdf

Of course people will want to repress things that are bad for their interests - it's human nature (for some of us), as i mentioned before, Saudi AramCo and the electric car.

Obviously, just because someone doesn't want something around doesn't mean they can achieve that end but this largely depends on the resources you have to throw at it and the influence you have in that particular field of endeavour.

This is very interesting and I learned something new.  However, I do not think there is a single documented case (meaning more that someone saying "the MIB got me, aaaaaaaaaah. . . .") of a free energy device being suppressed, in patent litigation or otherwise.

@exnihiloest

QuoteYes, if I was a CEO making 20 million a year and a technology came about which could put my income at risk the last thing I would be doing is laughing.
But it is not the case. I'm afraid that you misinterpreted my message. I would be laughing because I know that there is not one of such technologies that works (except perhaps Rossi's cold fusion), in spite of hundreds of claims and patents.
If one of them worked, we wouldn't be here searching for them or verifying them!

So basically you are implying that just because you or other persons here have no proof that a FE device really exists then this is absolute proof that they can never exist anywhere? Or is it just impossible because you personally do not understand or know?. Or does your knowledge or knowing or not actually define reality and what must be true? Hmmm

@eatenbyagrue

QuoteThis is very interesting and I learned something new.  However, I do not think there is a single documented case (meaning more that someone saying "the MIB got me, aaaaaaaaaah. . . .") of a free energy device being suppressed, in patent litigation or otherwise.

This is because the all mighty, all knowing, all seeing exnihiloest has changed your reality and your thinking by his knowing it cannot be true.

Regards
AC

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.09.01, 14:46:40
Some good points, wattsup.  Agreed that "The only way YOU CAN SURVIVE bringing a new energy source into this world is by giving it freely to everyone at the same time, " and I outlined ways to do this.

But how do you go about getting safety approvals?  and can this be done with a home-made device, not patented nor made by a "big company" like GE?
Say a guy wanted to buy a Tesla coil made by a neighbor -- does it have to have safety approvals?   in Japan, Hungary, etc. also?

PS -- how do you like GE, then?

PPS -- I pointed out Bill Mehess's errors in calculation, that he was actually getting less than a MILLIwatt of power out of his secretive device...  I don't expect much from his demonstration as far as an energy solution, sigh...

@PhysicsProf

Don't worry about approvals, don't worry about manufacturing, don't worry about patenting or anything like that. Our only concern here is to discover OU and explain it to everyone. End of story. The men and women around the world will figure out the rest. Those who already have approvals for other devices will know how to do it, manufacture it, etc.

You can have UL or CSA approval, or individual States or Provincial approvals, or even no approval. The approval is only there to make sure if ever anything happens, the house burns down due to a fire started in the device, that the insurance company will honor the insured.

The point here is lead time. Between the day OU is introduced and OU is being widely used in homes and everywhere will require a good 2-3 years before the first homes can buy it on the open markets. But again, this is not our concern as we will never be in a position to either monopolize or even capitalize on this. Actually, those that have tried to monopolize have all failed because they become easy singular targets for suppression based tactics. So if anyone thinks they can make a company called OU-FROM-ONLY-ME INC., you better buy your funeral plan in advance. It won't happen, the laws of industrial espionage and sabotage will not let it happen, the laws of human nature will not let it happen.

But, we here, should not be concerned about the "business" end of this. Business, academia, governments, will all have to wangle out their own definitions and basis for approvals. That's what these guys get paid for. All the world really needs is for once, to have a guy come forward and disclose to the world, for the world. But so far, all we have had are smart OU based guys with shits for business sense and just enough altruism to fit into a keyhole. As soon as these guys smell OU, bang, their brains go into greed mode and they sell out to the first bidder, hence tying themselves down with a group of quasi scavenging assholes. It will take a special person to not succumb.

About GE, they were no involved in the actual playing around but they will be the ones to hear about it. lol

About Mehess, yes I know you did. Also his using a 60,000 uF capacitor is not good. Both these reasons is why I tried to get the guy to either immediately disclose (best option) or increase his device output before he does a demo. Otherwise, most know in advance all the crap this will create . Anyways, it is in his hands so we just wait.

Oh, about your tests with the nail coils, did you try one coil that is countering bifilar. Meaning both winds start on the same side but one goes CW and the other CCW. I think if guys use this in their Romero wheel generator coils, the drag will be reduced tremendously because the coil fields will, well, not neutralize each other because the fields will always be there but the fields will create a neutral condition when the magnet passes.

wattsup

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.09.01, 19:57:15
I did not know California was interested in regulating carts before horses.

I'm a Californian.  I know what they're like.  Sacramento politicians will try and control everything possible and prolong their time in office as long as possible by confusing everyone with meaningless doubletalk.  Including themselves.  I doubt if they know the difference.  A lot of Americans may also think so, after several polls show Congress "in the popularity doghouse" as of late.

--Lee

We are midway through the end of an era:

QuoteRemaining Blockbuster Canada stores to close

31/08/2011 9:09:00 PM
Mary Gazze, The Canadian Press
TORONTO - Blockbuster Canada's remaining stores are set to close soon and 2,300 more jobs at the national movie rental chain are about to disappear, victims of the digital movie revolution.

The receiver in charge of selling Blockbuster Canada wants a court order to shut down the movie rental company's 253 remaining retail locations, saying Wednesday it had been unable to find a buyer willing to invest in the business.

So perhaps in another generation that's what will be happening to the oil industry, who knows.

Meanwhile, whenever a free energy clip creates a buzz, it's always a zero-calorie offering.  It's also like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown every time he goes to make a kick.

I say "zero calorie" because for many of these devices you should be able to connect a scope up and show where ZPE is making the transition into measurable electrical energy.  But that is never done.  Rosemary Ainslie attempted to at least measure the alleged excess energy (there was none), but she could not point out where in the waveform an excess energy anomaly was being observed.  For me, that kind of level of investigation has to be done.

We are just rehashing one more time, but what the hey.

The burden of proof for "the vision thing" with respect to free energy rests with the proponents of free energy, and it's amazing how often that simple logical deduction is forgotten.  Nobody should be accused of "failing to explain why free energy is not possible."  It's the proponents of free energy that have to try to explain why it is possible.

The whole mom and pop free energy scene is like an amoeba on a gnat that's landed on a giant picture window.  The feds looking through the big picture window don't even know "the scene" exists.  I disagree with the proverbial comments about the MIB that have been mentioned in this thread.

Ironically enough, Dumped's link to the documentary about psychopaths was one of the most extreme attempts at brainwashing I have ever seen in a video clip.  The juxtaposition of a reasonable sounding narration along with a sequence of images that together are supposed to make you paranoid that the whole world is run by psychopaths was really quite something.  There is great irony there Dumped, where you continuously warn about the hidden people pulling the strings in the background, and then you link to a clip that is just another form of string pulling.  That clip was trying to drag you, if not force you, into a world view that I think few people share.  That clip could be harmful to people that are highly susceptible to external influence.  I shuddered looking at that clip, it was a form of extreme political pornography.

Still waiting for the great free energy machine and the scope trace that shows a spike of energy that is materializing out of somewhere, or nowhere.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.09.02, 02:58:01
...

Ironically enough, Dumped's link to the documentary about psychopaths was one of the most extreme attempts at brainwashing I have ever seen in a video clip.  The juxtaposition of a reasonable sounding narration along with a sequence of images that together are supposed to make you paranoid that the whole world is run by psychopaths was really quite something.  There is great irony there Dumped, where you continuously warn about the hidden people pulling the strings in the background, and then you link to a clip that is just another form of string pulling.  That clip was trying to drag you, if not force you, into a world view that I think few people share.  That clip could be harmful to people that are highly susceptible to external influence.  I shuddered looking at that clip, it was a form of extreme political pornography.
...

Your reaction is not surprising and perhaps most who
view the video would react as you have.

Until you've been inside the "belly of the beast" and have
worked in intimate contact with the "actors" who make
things happen it would be very difficult to imagine that
what you perceive to be real is in fact an illusion.

Our world is very much controlled by a rather small group
of very bad people.  Yes, it is incredibly difficult for the
majority to see how they're being manipulated and exploited
by those few because the network of programming and control
which the "Elites" have at their disposal is vast and effective.

In time you shall begin to see the mask slip; the ugliness of
the beast.  When that day soon arrives it will be most uncomfortable
for you.  For some the truth will be a very hard pill to swallow...

Even those who believe themselves to be safely under the
umbrella of the "Elites."

We are all susceptible to external influences.  Some are more
easily hypnotized than others but all can be put under the
"spell."

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.09.02, 02:58:01
...

Still waiting for the great free energy machine and the scope trace that shows a spike of energy that is materializing out of somewhere, or nowhere.

The energy does materialize from out of somewhere
but it is not the "device" which causes this to happen.

Only a few have the ability to summon the energy.

One day we will understand why this is so.

Quote from: Dumped on 2011.09.02, 06:39:47
Our world is very much controlled by a rather small group
of very bad people. 

This is mainstream media nonsense.  Come on, we all know the world is controlled by aliens.

@ milehigh are you a professional skeptic, besides an engineer,do you believe that a free
energy device is not possible at all because you can't create energy.What information do you
have that tells you the tpu is fake.Heres a link to a radio show with Jack Durban an electronic
engineer that worked for SM has a  business that markets and develops products
you will hear a few members that are here,I know peswiki is not your favorite site,I came to overunity.com a few months before this radio show.If your interested download the radio show and listen to it.Jack Durban at this time was trying to smoke out SM by insulting him he had hes own agenda,he thought he might be dead.Jack Durban went to overunity.com and kept insulting
SM ,Jack Durban said SM called him and left a message on hes answering machine.Jack Durbans plan was to smoke out SM convince him to tell him how to build a tpu to market it thru hes business ,why would an engineer be so interested in a fake overunity device,check out hes business web site.Hes an electronic engineer like you.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Article:Jack_Durban%27s_experience_with_Steve_Marks_Toroid_Generator

@Milehigh

QuoteI say "zero calorie" because for many of these devices you should be able to connect a scope up and show where ZPE is making the transition into measurable electrical energy.  But that is never done.  Rosemary Ainslie attempted to at least measure the alleged excess energy (there was none), but she could not point out where in the waveform an excess energy anomaly was being observed.  For me, that kind of level of investigation has to be done.

One would think we could simply connect a scope and show where excess energy enters a system however this is an assumption not a fact. For instance if I have a circuit within a field which changes in ways I cannot percieve and this change is not a simple surface effect but acts internally in matter then really there is little to measure. Now some might say this is improbable but we have hard facts concerning these effects in the form of Gravity, that is this completely misunderstood field in which we may measure it's effect, why thing "fall" or seem to attract but we have no indication of the cause or "what" Gravity is fundamentally. Gravity is not a force, not an attraction nor the reason things fall these are effects or something which happens after the fact and are not a cause of anything, it is not Gravity. If you do not understand a common field such as Gravity, what it is fundamentally, then what makes you think you can just connect a scope to a circuit and all will be understood?.

QuoteThe burden of proof for "the vision thing" with respect to free energy rests with the proponents of free energy, and it's amazing how often that simple logical deduction is forgotten.  Nobody should be accused of "failing to explain why free energy is not possible."  It's the proponents of free energy that have to try to explain why it is possible.

Let's do a thought experiment, I place a black box on your desk and it starts generating heat and this heat production never stops and has no apparent source of energy. Now exactly what would I be compelled to explain to you, well nothing because the fact that both you or I may not be able to explain why the box generates heat has no bearing on the fact that it does regardless of whether we believe it or not. Opinions of something or a belief as when someone says they know it cannot work mean nothing in reality because reality is what it is regardless of what we may think.
I have always found this rather odd that so many intelligent people have such difficulty with such a simple concept, for example in my last post exnihiloest stated he knows this is impossible--- that is "HE KNOWS"--- as if his knowing may magically have some effect on reality or myself which is absurd. To be perfectly honest I think that anyone who may think their "knowing" must dictate the reality of any situation may be insane because it implies they know everything which is of course insane because they must consider themselves as a God of sorts -- all knowing all seeing, lol.
I can only hope that what people really mean to say is that they do not understand how or why something may work in reality in which case what we have is a simple  misunderstanding.
Regards
AC

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.09.02, 07:59:56
This is mainstream media nonsense.  Come on, we all know the world is controlled by aliens.

I suppose that would be dependent upon the
definition of "alien."

Or "hybrid."

It is hoped that the "Mainstream Media" will
find it within themselves to once again become
independent diggers for the whole truth.

What we have now is a charade.

Dumped:

For me personally, you are selling your ideas in the ideas marketplace.  What you have to say is nothing really new, I'm sure most people have heard this stuff for years.  The Trilateral Commission comes to mind right away.  I think that you are the one that's hypnotized, not the other way around.  There is a small army of people out there that share your views.  Certainly there are many parallels between your pitch and the the belief of many on the forums that you might be in danger from the MIB if you make a pulse motor.

Going back to the "who's watching and the MIB" issue, something to consider is that a typical posting of a magnet motor might get less than 500 views on YouTube.  A magnet motor with a lot of buzz might get less than 5000 views.  Have some of you ever checked out Nat of CommunityChannel fame on YouTube?  She is hilarious.  She probably gets a few hundred thousand views for every clip she posts.  The point being that nobody in government is paying attention, and almost nobody in real life is paying attention.  This is the state of the art in Internet narrowcasting!  lol

Cheappower2012:

I am not sure if you mean to say "professional skeptic" in a figurative sense or a literal sense, but I can assure you that there are no funds being sent my way as if I am a lobbyist or something like that.  I believe that free energy is not possible because the current state of science and my own common sense and the whole notion of balance and symmetry in Nature indicates that.  See how politically correct I am, I used the term the "current state of science."

One thing for sure it's easy to knock science if you don't understand it.  Look at the belief that coils can tap into ZPE.  There is not a single shred of evidence that that's the case.  On the other hand, if you understand the science, then the fact that a coil does not tap into ZPE makes perfect sense.  More importantly anybody could do a series of bench tests to investigate this issue themselves.

I only dabbled a bit on the Jack Durban web site, he didn't smell right to me.  I have looked at the web sites of real companies that are custom design houses and you can see a distinct difference.  That Stevn Mark audio clip in the zip file is downright nasty.  I may listen to some of the radio show later.  My best guess about SM is that he hid batteries inside his demo pieces.  A small Joule-Thief type circuit will allow the batteries to power a standard incandescent light bulb at full power for a short time.  It's arguable (pure speculation) that the whole SM-JD "fight" is just theater to suck in the rabid believers so that they will "invest" more in SM so he can live a lavish lifestyle just like Perendev (before he went to jail).  The bottom line for me personally is that in my opinion Steven Mark is a fake and a con artist.  If he is real then where the f*ck is the beef?  Back to Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football again.

By the way, I am not an engineer, I was an engineer.  In the last 20 years digital design has evolved so the real designers write VHDL code to program ASICS and gate arrays, and then they debug their designs on the bench.  I am way too out of date to ever go back!

MileHigh

MH what does science say about the amount of energy in a vacuum, and how does science explain the movement of electrons around the nucleus, does the electron use batteries  >:-)

OUR creators set the laws of physics, we and everything are but a Hologram anyway.
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/peterr/hologram/objectivereality.html

Peterae:

I don't have the link handy but there is an excellent Walter Lewin MIT lecture where he goes though the whole explanation of the movement of the electron around the nucleus.  It's a really good lecture and if you know your basic physics you should be able to follow it.  He crunches the numbers.  The bottom line is the electron is in orbit around the nucleus just like the Earth is in orbit around the sun.

The energy in a vacuum stuff and quantum physics and theories about fleeting particles and anti-particles is out of my realm.

MileHigh

AC:

I agree that they can't explain exactly how gravity works, but the effects of gravity are understood.  F = G.M1.M2/r^2.  Then you can use calculus to calculate the gravity field from a sphere, etc.

So things fall but exactly why they fall and exactly why the value of G is 6.67 10^-11 N.m^2/kg^2 is still a mystery as far as I know.  It's the same thing for the impedance of free space, 376.73031 ohms.  I don't think they know precisely why it is that value.

No doubt there are mysteries out there.  But for me the issue is that just like the effects of gravity are understood, the energy dynamics of your typical magnetic motor or coil-based TPU are understood.

For your black box thought experiment, my first thought is a nuclear pile!  lol  But of course that wouldn't last forever.  But to be factious for a second, if you can imagine a black box that generates heat, somebody else can imagine pink elephants in the sky on alternate Wednesday mornings.

As far as the arrogance of being all-knowing goes, I think everybody is open to new ideas.  New things will be discovered, but it's highly unlikely that free energy will be discovered.  Not that you guys aren't trying.  Look at the example of the laser.  Go back to 1940, and I doubt the concept even existed.  I think the first lasers were developed around 1960.  In our present time there must be thousands and thousands of applications for lasers.  But the key thing is they are not "magic" - they are understood, they obey the laws of physics.

A great one is when the first Apollo astronauts put a mirrored prism array on the surface of the moon that always reflects light back in the same direction.  Then they bounced a laser off the array and measured the distance to the moon to within a few centimeters.  Also, the moon's orbital radius increases by about two (?) centimeters per year.

Cold fusion is certainly interesting.  I think Rossi announced a delay.  If he doesn't show a demonstration unit by the end of 2012 I would start to lose my hopes.  I understand the basic concepts but honestly I'm not convinced that bouncing hydrogen molecules around inside a lattice can generate the "energy of fusion" that the physicists say is necessary.  For that one I am certainly willing to be open-minded and see if he delivers.  But the "number crunching" in my head tells me that he must be many many orders of magnitude away from the energy levels required for fusion.  I just can't envision an agitated lattice managing to knock a hydrogen atom into another atom to create fusion.  My frame of reference is the other two systems, laser-based inertial confinement or the other magnetic bottle system.  The energy levels in those two systems are astronomical, because that's what the number crunching says, and it's confirmed by the stars.  I suppose time will tell for Rossi.

MileHigh

Cheappower2012:

Quotewhy would an engineer be so interested in a fake overunity device,check out hes business web site.Hes an electronic engineer like you.

Jack Durban was on shaky ground as I already stated and I listened to about 40% of the interview.  At that point he talks about the device possibly working because it interacts with the Schumann resonance and that it might also interfere with submarine communications.

That's where he falls off the deep end.  He makes reference to submarine communications because they use ultra low frequency radio communications to communicate with submerged submarines.  That's because of the skin effect of salt water.  So he is trying to draw in a hypothetical connection where similar principles apply but it doesn't matter.  At that point in the interview it's all over.

The Schumann resonance and the submarine stuff have nothing to do with the TPU and he is simply exploiting the free energy curiosity and folklore about it.

So the guy has no credibility and he is just playing the game.  I know that sounds harsh and you can see the gulf between how you interpret that interview and how I interpret that interview.  So it's your choice to believe me or not.

I will go back to listening now but my suspicions have been confirmed.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.09.02, 21:53:24
Peterae:

I don't have the link handy but there is an excellent Walter Lewin MIT lecture where he goes though the whole explanation of the movement of the electron around the nucleus.  It's a really good lecture and if you know your basic physics you should be able to follow it.  He crunches the numbers.  The bottom line is the electron is in orbit around the nucleus just like the Earth is in orbit around the sun.

The energy in a vacuum stuff and quantum physics and theories about fleeting particles and anti-particles is out of my realm.

MileHigh

Thanks MH i will try googling it.

So do you know the source of the energy that keeps it moving, that's the important bit, considering that everything around us is using this energy source.

Every atom we have in our arsenal is already capable of using this already apparent endless energy, has anyone ever tried to estimate the amount of energy an electron uses to orbit the nucleus and then extrapolated this to a quantity in relation to every atom in the universe, or for matter of interest maybe the energy that's required for the earth to orbit the sun, i think we already can work out the energy needed to maintain orbit around the earth.

I wonder if the earths orbit around the sun slows everytime it hits an object.
And i wonder how much energy it took to start the earth orbiting the sun in the first place, if energy cannot be created then maybe there's a way of focusing the abundant energy in the solar system to a local point for collection.

My point is no one can say if a free energy device can be built or not until we know how the electron keeps orbiting a nucleus, i am not sure if you or scientists can fully answer this question.
Unless you can prove to me an electron does not use an infinite power source then i must assume free energy is already widely available and we are sourrounded by free energy devices already.

It must be reckoned that there is no need of energy to maintain the movement of an object at constant speed in space, or to maintain the rotation of the earth, or to maintain the rotation of a satellite far around the earth...
Don't forget Newton's first law. Energy is only needed for changing the state of objects, for instance to accelerate them.
The constituents of atoms are in equilibrium with the medium (ZPF),  the conservation of linear and angular momentum applies, therefore there is no reason to think that the electrons should stop. Even if we don't know exactly how the atoms interact with the ZPF, the question of energy for maintaining the "rotation" of electrons is irrelevant. The electrons don't stop because there is no force to stop them. Energy would be needed to stop them, not to let them rotate.

Peterae:

Exnihiloest is right.  In overly simple terms both the Earth and an the electron are in free fall about a nucleus, and both are in a vacuum.  They both are examples of circular motion because of centripetal force.  No energy is consumed or provided to the system to maintain this state of affairs.

In theory the Earth's orbit around the sun slows or speeds up every time it hits an object.  It's arguably an energy-neutral process.  But even if you considered it to be energy-draining, often effects like this are so small that the sun will gobble up the Earth before they are noticeable.

Going back for a second to Cheappower's reference to the radio interview with Jack Durban, it's like a form of a Turing test for me.  Even with Sterling Allen conducting the interview, Jack Durban couldn't keep up the facade for the entire duration of the interview and he failed the Turing test.  A heart-breaker!

MileHigh

OK guys i acept that  O0 thankyou

Vacuum is a relative measurement. Magnetic fields permiate through a vacuum and what are they interacting with?

@milehigh "professional skeptic" means to me that you don't believe something without hard proof or if it appears to violate some scientific law. A good friend of mine is like you in that respect,the answer you gave that SM and Jack Durban were  working together in a scam is the same answer he gave, remember too that SM is gay as relates to the phone message .Just for your information the video's date is from 1997 and 1998,crappy video's were posted I believe 2006,except for these video's we would not know SM from Adam.Jack Durban,when he came to overunity.com, posted a hi resolution video that he copied in secret at the time.Jack Durban didn't have a clue how it worked,"Schumann resonance ",as the explanation is just silly,or a members explanation that it channels the energy from the high voltage lines(magnetic fields) that run across the top of mansion where the video was recorded,that's insane. This same member went to that mansion in person,very funny stuff,Stefan(overunity.com) wanted him to knock on the door and ask if they knew SM.I suggested this radio program because it covers a lot of things,I don't expect you to believe any of it,I believe very little of it. Keep in mine that the video's are from 1997 to 1998 at that time battery technology was not what it is now,I have built almost every version of the tpu's ,(fake of course )to test whether you can fake it,only 2 are easy to fake the others are not .The others are hard to or impossible to do with what you could get at that time its one thing to video something to pull a con its another thing with people around you.This doesn't mean that its not a fake .The overunity.com members,some here, made one big mistake they believed every lie SM told them I started from the assumption that everything SM said is a lie,and hes goal is to make sure you never figure out how to build a tpu,so everything is checked. What SM told them is to make a big coil wound with smaller coils and fed 3 different frequencies to create a rotating magnetic field,totally silly.They all drank the koolaid and still do,even some every very smart guys believe this.I'm including pictures of some of my old stuff I have , pic #10,4 inch tpu,was made to test wattsup's theory that some tpu's were fake this is not that tpu, however I went thru and discovered that this one also was fake.Pic #20 is this fake tpu lighting a 100 watt bulb,real bulb. Pic#30 is a conceptional model to form a common operation model between different TPU's,this type was used in a video,he activated it by moving the speaker magnet around the back I label the areas where different functions happen,it works and will light a,light bulb.The tpu is worthy in my opinion to investigate far more than something from say, ring master bedini which we know is 100% fake. Milehigh you could be right the tpu could be fake,but you also could be wrong on this one, time will tell.

When it comes to the crunch all we need is a working device to prove to these guys it's possible, now that shouldn't be hard should it  C.C

OK back to the bench.

Quote from: Peterae on 2011.09.03, 09:47:33
Thanks MH i will try googling it.

So do you know the source of the energy that keeps it moving, that's the important bit, considering that everything around us is using this energy source.

Every atom we have in our arsenal is already capable of using this already apparent endless energy, has anyone ever tried to estimate the amount of energy an electron uses to orbit the nucleus and then extrapolated this to a quantity in relation to every atom in the universe, or for matter of interest maybe the energy that's required for the earth to orbit the sun, i think we already can work out the energy needed to maintain orbit around the earth.

I wonder if the earths orbit around the sun slows everytime it hits an object.
And i wonder how much energy it took to start the earth orbiting the sun in the first place, if energy cannot be created then maybe there's a way of focusing the abundant energy in the solar system to a local point for collection.

My point is no one can say if a free energy device can be built or not until we know how the electron keeps orbiting a nucleus, i am not sure if you or scientists can fully answer this question.
Unless you can prove to me an electron does not use an infinite power source then i must assume free energy is already widely available and we are sourrounded by free energy devices already.

Dear Peterae,

I am glad that you also believe in electron motion energy.  We can treat the orbits as levels.  When electrons jump from one level to another, they absorb or emit energy.  That is the theory behind the Laser.

Now I have some basic test equipment in USA.  Some preliminary results are shown on my bench at:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg16587#msg16587

reply 30

After the second Atten Oscilloscope arrive (within 4 weeks), I shall be able to improve on the tuning technique.  I believe that we can more conclusively show that multiple LCR resonance can bring-in energy from the surrounding.  The bring-in energy is indeed the electron motion energy of the orbiting electrons.

Divine Revelations will again be confirmed.  Amen

In reference to the SM17. There are 2 directional loop antennas, one facing up and one facing down. These pickup the ambient noise of the Environment. They are then amplified and fed back into the third and middle loop. SM chose the 5khz range as band width thereby limiting the interaction. Notice the large caps with the low turn loops.
This model gives a platform which adheres to SM's descriptions based upon what he could or could not say.
The two frequency switches could be any number of closure points, just diversionarily labeled or not.
The only plausible explanation for the center toroid thing is voice coil drivers. They work with 2 ohm speakers, or low turn count coils.
The open source distribution model has been talked about many times. There are enough people here to pick this apart and take a section to test. Everybody has done everything else to no avail. Pull your heads out of your arses and books put your heads together. It doesn't matter we know as individuals to hold aires about it. This is why we fail and have wars. My previous builds tested the facets of the tpu. My real job does not permit me to do any more nor does my surban domicile.
The youtubes i made showing the megahertz resonation during the off cycle of the square waves shows the one artifact that nobody has bothered to pursue. Why? What else is there? Has any build tapped this? Is this not something from nothing? Resonation of a magnetic field as it collapses. What direction are the vectors? It happens on the off pulse. As SM stated 'Cancel the flux', and 'weak magnetic field'.
More peanut gallery explanations are not necessary at this point. We have said all there is to say ad nauseum.

I am taking note  of what itseung8 is doing. He is on the correct path of electron motion energy. This is a better term than 'jacking the field'.

@cheappower2012

Quote...or a members explanation that it channels the energy from the high voltage lines(magnetic fields) that run across the top of mansion where the video was recorded,that's insane. This same member went to that mansion in person,very funny stuff...

:o  ;D  8)



@GK

QuoteI am taking note  of what itseung8 is doing.

Me too, but he needs to be more scientific about it.   Those resonators put out sound with higher directional energy along their open end axis, so it matters where the microphone is placed and how close.   All that aside,  the sound energy decays more rapidly inside a single resonator than when it's surrounded by other resonators that reflect some of the energy back.  This is well known.  And by the way the energy does not come from some exotic "electron spin" but from him striking the forks with the little hammer.  He also needs to remove the uncertainty of initial power input, and change the fork striking mechanism (striking it by hand is not too repeatable and controllable)  And lastly,  measuring how long the sound lasts, is not a measure of energy creation, just how high the Q of the setup is.  He does not do a power in vs a power out measurement, because he can't.  It's quite complicated, how would you account for all the sound energy that radiated away?   Maybe do this experiment in an anechoic chamber and have lots of microphones around a sphere and than do lots of math to compute the energy that radiated away.   This is what I've done with antennas, it's called near field scanning.    Tesung talks scientific, but I'm not fooled.




@exnihiloest

QuoteIt must be reckoned that there is no need of energy to maintain the movement of an object at constant speed in space, or to maintain the rotation of the earth, or to maintain the rotation of a satellite far around the earth...
Don't forget Newton's first law. Energy is only needed for changing the state of objects, for instance to accelerate them.
The constituents of atoms are in equilibrium with the medium (ZPF),  the conservation of linear and angular momentum applies, therefore there is no reason to think that the electrons should stop. Even if we don't know exactly how the atoms interact with the ZPF, the question of energy for maintaining the "rotation" of electrons is irrelevant. The electrons don't stop because there is no force to stop them. Energy would be needed to stop them, not to let them rotate.

I have news for you,   electrons orbiting the nucleus would stop rotating if there were no energy input from the outside.  This is not  similar to a satellite rotating around the earth, like you ignorantly believe.   Can you guess why?    It's called RADIATION.   Electrons are charges under acceleration, and acceleration of charges gives off radiation and energy.   If the temperature drops to obsolete zero all electron motion stops.  It's the temperature and the energy around us that "keeps us going and going!"

Giantkiller:

QuoteThey are then amplified and fed back into the third and middle loop.

Amplified by what?

QuoteThe youtubes i made showing the megahertz resonation during the off cycle of the square waves shows the one artifact that nobody has bothered to pursue. Why? What else is there? Has any build tapped this? Is this not something from nothing?

The square waves by definition have megahertz frequencies in them.  If something in your setup could resonate in the megahertz range, then it makes sense that the square waves could have done this.

MileHigh

Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.09.03, 16:37:26

@GK On Ltseung888 work:

Me too, but he needs to be more scientific about it.   Those resonators put out sound with higher directional energy along their open end axis, so it matters where the microphone is placed and how close.   All that aside,  the sound energy decays more rapidly inside a single resonator than when it's surrounded by other resonators that reflect some of the energy back.  This is well known.  And by the way the energy does not come from some exotic "electron spin" but from him striking the forks with the little hammer.  He also needs to remove the uncertainty of initial power input, and change the fork striking mechanism (striking it by hand is not too repeatable and controllable)  And lastly,  measuring how long the sound lasts, is not a measure of energy creation, just how high the Q of the setup is.  He does not do a power in vs a power out measurement, because he can't.  It's quite complicated, how would you account for all the sound energy that radiated away?   Maybe do this experiment in an anechoic chamber and have lots of microphones around a sphere and than do lots of math to compute the energy that radiated away.   This is what I've done with antennas, it's called near field scanning.    Tesung talks scientific, but I'm not fooled.

Dear EMDevices,

You should look at the slides using the constant sound source carefully.  A speaker was connected to the signal generator and a microphone was used to pick up the sound. The amplitude of the constant sound was displayed via the Winscope program. (slide 14 and 15 of Aug Summary)

The comparison was done with the speaker alone and when a resonance box was brought appropriately close to the speaker (1/4 wavelength).  The increase in amplitude was marked by the two white arrows.  This is the visual confirmation with a constant sound.  The increase in loudness of the sound could be heard by every one in the room.  (It is a slight variation of the tuning fork with a resonance tube experiment.  There was negligible change if the distance was different.)

With the above set up, I did not have to worry about the differences in the striking force.  The sound is much louder in all parts of the room.  I do not need to worry about the exact position of the microphone.

The scientific question is – a passive element (resonance box) helped to produce a much louder sound.  Where does the extra energy come from???

The experiment is easy to repeat and there is no need to strike the tuning fork.

Divine Revelation 1 cannot be wrong.  There is extra sound energy when the resonance box is placed appropriately close to the constant sound source.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.09.04, 02:18:26
...

The scientific question is – a passive element (resonance box) helped to produce a much louder sound.  Where does the extra energy come from???
...

Could it be an effect similar to this old
device?

It was said:

335 BC Bull Horn or stentorophonic tube.
Alexander the Great used one and could
communicate 12 miles.

@ ltseung888


Using a "constant" source is a step in the right direction.  Very good.   Now,  why don't you also measure the voltage and current input to the speaker?    You will find that those values change when you place a resonator in the room.    The louder sound produced by the resonator is not free energy out of nothing, it comes from the sound source, or speaker, and builds up over a few periods of the pure tone.  The energy built up in the resonator than also interacts with the speaker and changes it's input impedance.  It would be nice if they were decoupled but they are not.   I deal with this all the time, but in the electromagnetic domain, for example in phased arrays the impedance of each element is different when by itself than when placed in the array.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.09.04, 07:05:28
@ ltseung888


Using a "constant" source is a step in the right direction.  Very good.   Now,  why don't you also measure the voltage and current input to the speaker?    You will find that those values change when you place a resonator in the room.    The louder sound produced by the resonator is not free energy out of nothing, it comes from the sound source, or speaker, and builds up over a few periods of the pure tone.  The energy built up in the resonator than also interacts with the speaker and changes it's input impedance.  It would be nice if they were decoupled but they are not.   I deal with this all the time, but in the electromagnetic domain, for example in phased arrays the impedance of each element is different when by itself than when placed in the array.

We can let the sound last for hours.  The suggestion that the much louder sound comes from the building up of some initial condition does not seem correct scientifically.

Furthermore, 2, 3, 4 resonance boxes placed appropriately will increase the loudness of the sound.  I guess that more may produce the same effect but I shall stick to 4 as I have 4 in my possession.  The experiment can be repeated easily.

Is the suggestion that energy from the air molecules are led-out or brought-in reasonable?

Please study the spreadsheet at the debate thread with MileHigh at my bench.  Both theory and experiments checked out.

I believe you may have a signal generator and an oscilloscope.  The other electronic components are relatively cheap.  Please repeat the above experiment for yourself and for the World.

With the right equipment, any scientific challenge will be met.  Divine Revelation 1 cannot be wrong.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.09.03, 16:37:26
...
@exnihiloest
I have news for you,   electrons orbiting the nucleus would stop rotating if there were no energy input from the outside.
...

It's not news! Your news date of a century. You give a false answer to a true question which was brilliantly answered by Bohr in 1913!  :)

Rotation means centripetal acceleration and accelerating charges means radiation therefore expense of energy. This is one of the points that disqualified classical mechanics to explain the atom stability. On this point you are right that my comparison was approximate but it was made in the Peterae's post context of an electron viewed as an orbiting object.
Now, we know it is not simply the case, and it is the reason why I said what you should have read more carefully: "the constituents of atoms are in equilibrium with the medium (ZPF)". I have not said that "there were no energy input from the outside", I said that the electron radiates as much as it receives, but it is not the real point.
It is well known that this question was brilliantly answered by Bohr. An electron is also a wave, its stability needs the orbit length to be an integer multiple of the wave length in order to maintain constructive interferences. The stability comes from standing waves, not from energy from outside.
The consequence has been the quantization of the electronic orbits, perfectly verified by the precise rays in the spectrum of radiations from electrons changing their orbit. Bohr's answer worked perfectly to explain hydrogen atom and it had to be clarified for atoms with more than 1 electron (Sommerfeld's work).

If you affirmed that the electron needs energy to maintain its orbit, you would need to discard discrete electronic orbits, to discard Bohr's atomic model, to discard quantum mechanics, so you could not even speak about electron or orbit. The problem with physics is that every field is logically interconnected with all others and you can't take and reject at will this or that, especially crucial points, without having all the matter of each field to rebuild from a to z.

@exnihiloest

QuoteIt is well known that this question was brilliantly answered by Bohr. An electron is also a wave, its stability needs the orbit length to be an integer multiple of the wave length in order to maintain constructive interferences. The stability comes from standing waves, not from energy from outside.
The consequence has been the quantization of the electronic orbits, perfectly verified by the precise rays in the spectrum of radiations from electrons changing their orbit. Bohr's answer worked perfectly to explain hydrogen atom and it had to be clarified for atoms with more than 1 electron (Sommerfeld's work).

That is a brilliant answer and we can use it in everday life as well, for instance if I had a chicken which always sat in it's pen then all of a sudden this chicken decided to miraculously start flying in circles well then I would just call my chicken a Duck. A chicken is also a duck, as well it is known that the electron is made of smaller particles which magically pop in and out of existence therefore we could simply say my chicken is also a duck however when it is sitting, or a chicken, it is made of pigeons which magically pop in and out of existence. It all makes perfect sense when we really think about it and it is a good thing there are so many smart people to find these answers for us.

Regards
AC

Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.09.04, 14:54:45
It all makes perfect sense when we really think about it and it is a good thing there are so many smart people to find these answers for us.

:) ;) :D ;D

(I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at a prime example of self fullfilling logic that is the basis for all of our sciences today   >:-))

Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.09.04, 07:05:28
@ ltseung888


Using a "constant" source is a step in the right direction.  Very good.   Now,  why don't you also measure the voltage and current input to the speaker?    You will find that those values change when you place a resonator in the room.   The louder sound produced by the resonator is not free energy out of nothing, it comes from the sound source, or speaker, and builds up over a few periods of the pure tone.  The energy built up in the resonator than also interacts with the speaker and changes it's input impedance.  It would be nice if they were decoupled but they are not.   I deal with this all the time, but in the electromagnetic domain, for example in phased arrays the impedance of each element is different when by itself than when placed in the array.

Dear EMDevices,

I now measured the Input Voltage and Current to the speaker.  They hardly changed when I brought the resonance box to about ¼ wavelength distance.  The resulting sound was much louder.  

I know that I have the advantage of the experimental set up.  Please make constructive suggestions as the above and I shall try my best to confirm any assumptions or suggestion with the experimental set up.

Thank you for the suggestion.  We all learn something even if the suggestion turned out to be wrong.

Scientific suggestions can be verified by appropriate experiments.

@ltesung888

I'm glad to see your implementing my suggestions, but implement them correctly please.  I don't see your AC current waveform in the diagram?   The phase between the current and voltage should change when you bring that resonator close to it.   Please do the experiment again and record what I suggested, maybe use a 0.5 ohm resistor in series with the speaker and scope the waveform across it.  If the phase angle between the voltage and current does not change, than maybe you have a point.


Oh, and by the way, the way you need to report BEFORE and AFTER changes, is with two oscilloscope graphs, one before and one after the resonator is brought close.  You are only showing me one graph on your slide above.

Also statements like:    "Input waveform hardly changed when Resonance box was brought close..."  need to be quantified.  What does HARDLY mean?  0.1 volt? 0.00001 volts?  If you want to do something scientific you need to pay attention to these kinds of suggestions.  Objective measurements is what's accepted by the scientific community not subjective impressions.

@exnihiloest

QuoteRotation means centripetal acceleration and accelerating charges means radiation therefore expense of energy. This is one of the points that disqualified classical mechanics to explain the atom stability. On this point you are right that my comparison was approximate but it was made in the Peterae's post context of an electron viewed as an orbiting object.

I know you know your stuff, that's why I'm watching you like a hawk.    >:(     ;D  :D

EMdevices is dead on about the speaker and measuring the power consumption.  When you put a resonator in front of the speaker you lower the impedance of the air medium that the speaker "sees."

Now the air medium draws more acoustic power from the speaker.  The speaker is simply acting like a transformer between electrical input power and acoustic output power.

So you should see an increase in the power draw from the speaker.  However, the power increase might be very small, and you might need a multimeter with five or six digits of precision after the decimal point.

Lawrence, if you hadn't considered the issue of the impedance of the air "load" as seen by the speaker, this should be investigated.  In technical terms the whole system is a "filter" and as a result it could be mathematically modeled and you could run simulations.

Like many experimenters, you bump into observations that are difficult to explain unless you have a deeper understanding about the electrical and mechanical systems that are at play.

You can't get excess energy from air molecules or Joule Thieves.  In addition, the Joule Thief was never promoted as being an over unity device.  It was simply promoted as a device that could extract the last bits of juice from a nearly dead battery.  People discovered that it could also light long strings of LEDs in series and got a bit carried away.

MileHigh

P.S.:  EMdevices, you mentioned the phase angle also which I hadn't considered.  I'm not sure how you could make a decent input power measurement for a speaker if you don't have a DSO.  I guess you need to make as accurate as possible measurements of the voltage waveform, the current waveform, and the phase angle.  It's an interesting problem.

thanks for backing me up, MileHigh.  O0    

[edit: ]  I hope you know this is risky because the next slide from ltesung888 is going to read:  

EMDevices AND MileHigh are WRONG!    ;D  :D



looks like RomeroUK is back,   hey dude, where have you been?      ;D  :D

Okay, just for fun, the measurement issue.  How do you measure very slight changes to the electrical power going into a speaker?  Assume you have an amp, a speaker, and sinusoidal waveform from a signal generator to work with.  You have the usual bench equipment but no DSO.

I am going to guess that there are better ways than my suggestion but here goes:

You put a current sensing resistor in the speaker wire.  You measure your AC voltage to the speaker and your AC voltage across the CSR with your best multimeter.  You can also "trick" your scope and offset the waveform and increase the scope gain to detect small increases in voltage also.

Then the tough part is the phase angle.  You can eyeball the zero crossings on your scope or put it into X-Y mode.

If you have some kind of timer circuit and connected the voltage and current waveforms to comparator circuits then you could make a very precise measurement of the phase angle.

That suggests a neat breadboard design.  You can probably buy 10-bit digital counter chips.  So you cascade two 10-bit counters to make a 20-bit counter.  Suppose you use a one-megahertz crystal oscillator to clock the counter.  Assume the counter has three inputs, "start count," "stop count," and "clear."

So you make your own digital timer with a resolution of one microsecond.  It's just a few chips on a breadboard and 20 LEDs to give you the count.  Then you would be in a position to make an extremely accurate measurement of the phase angle.

So with a basic bench setup and your home-brew digital timing device you would have all you need to make the before and after speaker input power measurements for Lawrence's experiment.

MileHigh

Isn't a speaker also a microphone?

wattsup

Yes indeed.

yes it is, which is why the louder sound in the air also affects it and as a result the phase angle between the voltage and current change.   Tesung apparently does not understand these concepts and how critical they are to power measurements.  I say this because I saw how he dealt with the Joule Thief circuits in calculating the power in vs. power out.  Total disregard for phase, I was just appalled!


To further discussion, a speaker's impedance can be approximated by something like:   Z = R + j wL,   so when a pure sinusoid waveform drives the speaker, we can tell right away the current will not be in phase with the voltage.   However, if we bring a resonator into the mix,  than we know that at resonance the angle between the current and voltage begins to shift towards zero, and maximum power flow is achieved.    Tesung is under the impression that the loud sound from the resonator has nothing to do with the input, and he is in for a surprise.   If there was no coupling between the speaker and resonator than indeed we can surmise that maybe we can amplify energy, but sadly that is not the case, or it better not be, or I might have to go back to school and relearn everything.   LOL   ;D    



PS.    Lawrence,   here's what you should strive for in your next experiment.   Obtain two oscilloscope screen shots, a BEFORE and an AFTER.   I want to see the phase difference between the voltage and the current into the speaker for both scenarios, before and after you add the resonator.    You can not just look at magnitudes, because the magnitudes most likely stay the same and only the phase changes.

For most experimenters the difficulty of performing scientific and useable measurements is nothing compared to learning 'loudness' alone can't be used as an indication of power.

The common result is the loudness will be heard but the measurements don't line up with what is heard. Then the measurements or equipment is doubted.

I have no doubt an increase in loudness has been perceived. Unfortunately, that means almost nothing unless you are using it to tune something.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.09.04, 18:36:59
PS.    Lawrence,   here's what you should strive for in your next experiment.   Obtain two oscilloscope screen shots, a BEFORE and an AFTER.   I want to see the phase difference between the voltage and the current into the speaker for both scenarios, before and after you add the resonator.    You can not just look at magnitudes, because the magnitudes most likely stay the same and only the phase changes.

Maybe consider doing the above in a sound proof room with sound absorbing surfaces.

But since you have a speaker and a microphone, you may consider doing some work with feedback that in my view has more potential for OU, or, at the least, you are all set up for Karaoke night.

wattsup

The loudspeaker is inherently a low impedance device
and a very inefficient transducer which is little affected
by acoustic reflections from nearby objects at low power
levels.

Horns are effective impedance matching devices which
will increase the efficiency and acoustic power output.

It may be that the nearby resonant chambers are acting
as a pseudo horn and/or extended radiator surface which
magnifies the acoustic power.

I bet you some Arduino code already exists to make it function as a timer.  Again, there are hardware timers built into almost any microcontroller.  All that you need is the code and to get the list of I/O pins that are being used for the counter function.  The code is ridiculously simple, you just trigger a read cycle with an interrupt when the "stop count" signal goes true and read the value in the timer registers.

Code on the Arduino or code on the host computer could convert the binary count into microseconds.  More importantly, you could run the phase angle timing test for 1000 cycles and then average it out and then spit out a very accurate time measurement.  The more I think about it, you actually have to do that.  You have to average out some inherent "timing jitter" factors associated with the triggering of the comparators.

Anyway, the more I think about it, the Arduino could make for a nifty digital assistant when you work with pulse motors.  Of course there is the code that ZeroFossilFuel has to control the timing of the pulsing which is incredibly useful.  If you can make the Arduino do something simple like this with one day or less of coding, then I think it would be awesome.  I think that's very doable also.

In another life I wrote some machine language, 6502, 8080 and 80x86.  Here is the mark of a true engineer:  If you had a Commodore64 or dare I say it, a Vic-20, you could write a cool little random self destruct program which was much fun.  The first 1024 addresses in the address space were reserved by the operating system for all of the variables and stuff like that.  I am pretty sure that all of the hardware registers for the graphics and everything else where also in that space.

So you wrote a small Basic program using the RND() function, the random number generator.   You generated a random number between 0 and 1024 for the address, and you generated a random number between 0 and 255 to "poke" into that address location.  Then the program looped back to do the same thing all over again.

When you ran this program you just sat back and watched the computer undergo spasms and have a seizure!  lol  The display would go crazy and it might make random sounds and sometimes the display buffer got mapped to the same 1K address space that the operating system and hardware registers used and you got a psychedelic display.  The poor computer would keep sticking pins into itself until it locked up and died.  It was fun!

MileHigh

The relevant guts that are in the micrcocontroller that the Arduino uses taken from Wikipedia:

QuoteMultifunction, bi-directional general-purpose I/O ports with configurable, built-in pull-up resistors

Internal SRAM up to 16 kB (32 kB on XMega)

8-bit and 16-bit timers
   PWM output (some devices have an enhanced PWM peripheral which includes a dead-time generator)
   Input capture

Analog comparator

10 or 12-bit A/D converters, with multiplex of up to 16 channels

12-bit D/A converters

Lighting and motor control (PWM-specific) controller models

LCD controller support

Low-voltage devices operating down to 1.8 V (to 0.7 V for parts with built-in DC–DC upconverter)

Too good to be true!!!!  You could go nuts if you are a pulse motor enthusiast and you wanted to leverage the power of the Arduino board in your testing!!!

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.09.04, 15:36:49
Please make constructive suggestions as the above and I shall try my best to confirm any assumptions or suggestion with the experimental set up.

Thank you for the suggestion.  We all learn something even if the suggestion turned out to be wrong.

Scientific suggestions can be verified by appropriate experiments.

My first suggestion is to have a proper control for every element of your experiment.

MH
Those were the days, when i was 14 i was programming the commadore pet with 6502  :)
I was trained in Z80 but learnt most 6809, 8080, etc

I love pic's they have everything that's needed including comparators, 10 bit A/D's timers etc.

Take a look at this little beauty it's only 8 pins
http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=en549758

Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.09.04, 14:54:45
@exnihiloest
That is a brilliant answer and we can use it in everday life as well, for instance if I had a chicken which always sat in it's pen then all of a sudden this chicken decided to miraculously start flying in circles well then I would just call my chicken a Duck. A chicken is also a duck, as well it is known that the electron is made of smaller particles which magically pop in and out of existence therefore we could simply say my chicken is also a duck however when it is sitting, or a chicken, it is made of pigeons which magically pop in and out of existence. It all makes perfect sense when we really think about it and it is a good thing there are so many smart people to find these answers for us.

Regards
AC

By considering among other things the atom according to the Bohrl model, which follows from Maxwell's electromagnetism and mechanics laws, compatible with relativity and giving birth to quantum mechanics, the human kind got the basis of a tremendous and consistant knowledge that allows the technology to produce the pieces that allcanadian and all of us use every day: electricity coming from alternators whose rotation is obtained from nuclear, hydroelectric dam or oil energy, cell-phone communications, electronics of PC for posting here, cars with GPS giving the exact position thanks to general relativity, TV from geostationary satellites at 36000 km from the earth and so on...

For those who are not ignorant of this tremendous and consistant knowledge, there is no mystery but only causes and effects logically related, with theoretical models fitting rather well what we observe in our universe. This is the reason why our technology works so well.

Those who are ignorant of this tremendous and consistant knowledge see in it chickens, ducks or pigeons because they are not able to distinguish between them nor they are able to understand that a duck can transform into a pigeon, as nickel can transform into copper, or a magnetic field trnsform into an electric field depending on how we look at it: it is outside of the mind of farmers. For them, all these things are fuzzy birds.

Now what have these ignorants of science built on their side? Did they produce electricity, send satellites to the limit of the solar system, build radio transmitters? No, they work in farms, feed ducks, pigeons and other animals in order to feed other people including more intelligent people than them, as Bohr, and get benefits in return, for instance some technical means to light their chicken coop or to plow their fields.
So the world goes.

The problem comes when farmers decide to plow the fields of physicists without having studied what is known in physics. They wonder that something thought by them in the form of a "chicken" could also be a "duck". They wonder at all the things that defy their basic sense of farmer and so they make all the mistakes that the pioneers in physics already made before finding out the right solutions. A farmer not smart enough to understand that one does not make physicist's discoveries in a snap of a finger is like a physicist who would like become a farmer without solid notions in agriculture: he sows corn in winter and  never harvest anything. Did we reap a single FE device that works? We didn't, otherwise we would not be here to search for it.
There is a way to progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants
In the free energy field, the many dwarfs I see are not standing on the shoulders of giants, they despise them from the summit of the low level of their innate knowledge, they challenge math with gibberish, they are still convinced they are the giants!  ;D

@exnihiloest

QuoteBy considering among other things the atom according to the Bohrl model, which follows from Maxwell's electromagnetism and mechanics laws, compatible with relativity and giving birth to quantum mechanics, the human kind got the basis of a tremendous and consistant knowledge that allows the technology to produce the pieces that allcanadian and all of us use every day: electricity coming from alternators whose rotation is obtained from nuclear, hydroelectric dam or oil energy, cell-phone communications, electronics of PC for posting here, cars with GPS giving the exact position thanks to general relativity, TV from geostationary satellites at 36000 km from the earth and so on...

I think some clarification may be in order, first the electricity coming from the alternators you mention was not a result of any actions of Bohr, Maxwell nor Einsteins relativity but Nikola Tesla who invented the AC motors and generators which are used everywhere in this modern world and this man Nikola Tesla thought all the great men you have mentioned were peddling BS. As well it has been proven in the supreme court that Nikola Tesla was the inventor of "Radio" as well as having patented devices similar to transistors and in 1999 IBM tried to patent the logic gate a function of transistors fundamental to all digital electronics and low and behold IBM was denied their patents because one Nikola Tesla had prior art in his patents which predated IBM by some 50 years. So please get your facts straight and at the very least give credit to the people who invented real technology and not theorist who as we know seldom invent anything.

QuoteIn the free energy field, the many dwarfs I see are not standing on the shoulders of giants, they despise them from the summit of the low level of their innate knowledge, they challenge math with gibberish, they are still convinced they are the giants!

I see it a little different, I see responsible adults who have decided they have a mind of their own and can think for themselves (not unlike your giants) and rather than watching others mindlessly following your giants without question they are asking--- "why"?. Children follow others without question not responsible adults and this is why the men you call giants had become giants in their fields in the first place-- because they did not blindly accept the theories of others. It's kind of funny how that works, almost all the people we call the greatest minds in history rejected the science of the time and you seem to be implying that we should just accept it, no I don't think so were past that nonsense.
Regards
AC

Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.09.05, 23:24:50
@exnihiloest
I think some clarification may be in order, first the electricity coming from the alternators you mention was not a result of any actions of Bohr, Maxwell nor Einsteins relativity but Nikola Tesla who invented the AC motors and generators
...

The pioneers in electricity were Ampère, Faraday, Coulomb, Biot, Savart, Helmholtz and so on... whose the discoveries were synthesized by Maxwell in his equations (Einstein relativity is another way to understand electrical phenomena, for instance to explain Ampère wires attraction).

An ac motor is an application of Faraday's law of induction dating 1831, well before Tesla. Tesla was a brilliant inventor. He was not a messiah. His work has been rendered possible because all the context of electromagnetism was established. For example the idea of winding coils to create magnetic fields in ac motors didn't pop out in his mind from nothing: this was already known. Coils and effects of varying magnetic fields were known. Tesla was standing on the shoulders of the pioneers and became himself a giant (in inventions, not in discoveries).

And when Tesla quitted the other giants, he failed. His idea of a longitudinal wave for explaining the coupling at long distance of big LC resonators was wrong. The effect is perfectly and more simply explained by Maxwell equations applied to circuits in near field.

Quote
I see it a little different, I see responsible adults who have decided they have a mind of their own and can think for themselves (not unlike your giants) and rather than watching others mindlessly following your giants
...

If "responsible adults" had decided they have a mind of their own, they wouldn't differ from the pioneers whom we were speaking about, and we would get the same useful results from their minds as from the minds of the pioneers. But we see nothing.
We see nothing because either their mind were too limited  in relation to their pretentious claim or more likely they have decided that they have innate knowledge, not a mind of their own! It's very different.
They have not to think, they have not to understand, they already know: Maxwell is wrong, Einstein is stupid, Bohr's model is a question of ducks and chickens, and so on!...   C.C
Tesla is not a giant for them, he is their God. Challenging his longitudinal wave is viewed by the bigots as a blaspheme (I experimented myself this situation); astonishing example of "different thinking". These "responsible adults" are much more likely unemancipated and tyrannic children lost in poor dreams.

Using a so-called "mind of their own" for wishful thinking is a terrible waste of gray matter! We are not yet surprised by the total lack of working inventions from this method.
Using a "mind of their own" doesn't mean to refuse conventional science which shown so many obvious proofs of its relevance, it means to understand it, to use it and to go beyond.

I just wanted to say again Exnihiloest that you really know your theory.  It's very impressive.  I knew it in the sense that I sat through the classes and was able to follow along and understand.  I don't have the ability to use and apply academic knowledge like you can.  To do that I have to go back and relearn stuff, which I do very occasionally.  As you well know, when you finish school and go into the working world most people don't work in pure science, especially engineers.  You tend to forget the nitty-gritty details in the stuff you learned.  It's not too often you have to use matrix algebra on the job!  lol

You, on the other hand, do know all of the details, and as a result it's great to read your comments sometimes.

MileHigh

Thanks for your remark, MileHigh. My method doesn't differ from yours. "I have [also] to go back and relearn stuff". After having experimented with the lifter, I enjoyed the experience. So I renewed with physics in 2002 (as hobby) after tens of years of activity in other fields. I had almost all forgotten. It was a very hard work for me to upgrade (4 years), and I didn't even touch the math formalism outside basic formulae, but only the principles. Now it's a bit easier to see the misinterpretations of known phenomena in overunity claims.
What I read from you is always very clear answers and relevant questions or objections. Purely logic and rational. I think its a good thing for a forum such ours. It's also a real pleasure to see some else writing what I would like to have wrote myself (and less tiring for me)!  :).

Quote from: wattsup on 2011.09.04, 16:54:26
Isn't a speaker also a microphone?

wattsup

Indeed, it is.  I knew someone who eavesdropped on his brother's conversation using a walkie-talkie wired to a television speaker in his brother's bedroom.  Surprised his brother no end!   :D   ;D   ^-^

--Lee

@exnihiloest

QuoteAn ac motor is an application of Faraday's law of induction dating 1831, well before Tesla. Tesla was a brilliant inventor. He was not a messiah. His work has been rendered possible because all the context of electromagnetism was established. For example the idea of winding coils to create magnetic fields in ac motors didn't pop out in his mind from nothing: this was already known. Coils and effects of varying magnetic fields were known. Tesla was standing on the shoulders of the pioneers and became himself a giant (in inventions, not in discoveries).

If all the context of electromagnetism was established then I wonder why most all the modern science journals are littered with what is called "new phenomena" relating to electromagnetism?. I would agree with what you are saying however I would point out the difference between a person who says look the apple always falls from that tree and another person who understands why the apple falls to such an extent that they may prevent it from falling in the first place. While many great men in our past established a basic understanding of things this does not mean they understood everything nor how to apply their understanding to tangible things in new ways which help real people. I do not worship NikolaTesla it just seems odd that so many supposed experts just conveniently forget to mention his name when speaking of our modern grid or AC motors and generators but have no issue with dropping Edison's name every chance they get.

QuoteAnd when Tesla quitted the other giants, he failed. His idea of a longitudinal wave for explaining the coupling at long distance of big LC resonators was wrong. The effect is perfectly and more simply explained by Maxwell equations applied to circuits in near field.

That's debatable and I would remind you how many times in our past the popular opinion of something was later proven to be inaccurate, more people believing something does not make it more correct only more popular.

QuoteIf "responsible adults" had decided they have a mind of their own, they wouldn't differ from the pioneers whom we were speaking about, and we would get the same useful results from their minds as from the minds of the pioneers. But we see nothing.
We see nothing because either their mind were too limited  in relation to their pretentious claim or more likely they have decided that they have innate knowledge, not a mind of their own! It's very different.
They have not to think, they have not to understand, they already know: Maxwell is wrong, Einstein is stupid, Bohr's model is a question of ducks and chickens, and so on!...   
Tesla is not a giant for them, he is their God. Challenging his longitudinal wave is viewed by the bigots as a blaspheme (I experimented myself this situation); astonishing example of "different thinking". These "responsible adults" are much more likely unemancipated and tyrannic children lost in poor dreams.

I hate to have to state the obvious but you seem completely infatuated with Nikola Tesla, he was a great but unpopular and underrated inventor in my opinion---- get over it and move on.

QuoteUsing a so-called "mind of their own" for wishful thinking is a terrible waste of gray matter! We are not yet surprised by the total lack of working inventions from this method.
Using a "mind of their own" doesn't mean to refuse conventional science which shown so many obvious proofs of its relevance, it means to understand it, to use it and to go beyond.

The funny thing about wishful thinking is that sometimes wishes come true, for instance a long time ago a couple of uneducated bicycle repairmen had a dream to fly like a bird however the experts basically told then they were crazy as it should be obvious that something which is heavier than air could never fly -- it is obvious and intuitive. Now it wasn't so much that they were "crazy" it was just that they had a new and different perspective on what was at that time a very old problem. As well it was not so much the physics nor the math that was the issue as you have mentioned they were already established for the most part at the time. Here we should understand that physics and math and singular phenomena are not airplanes, they are not the same thing, and while science may predict why an airplane flies after the fact it can never predict that one must exist or not or the new science which may come about because it exists.
I was reading an article in Scientific American just last week on this issue whereby the author had developed a theorem proving that science and physics cannot predict technology nor the new science which may evolve from it for obvious reasons. You see science is a description of phenomena which occurs after the fact not before, it describes what our imagination has conceived which very well may be due to wishful thinking. Science does not and has never created one single technology, people create new technology which may lead to new understanding and new science. As such to imply that we can just remove people or their imagination or their wishful thinking from the equation goes against the spirit of what science is in my opinion.

Regards
AC

Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.09.06, 19:12:46
@exnihiloest
If all the context of electromagnetism was established then I wonder why most all the modern science journals are littered with what is called "new phenomena" relating to electromagnetism?

New phenomena don't mean "new principles". New phenomena in electromagnetism are generally new observations which can be still described by known fundamental laws. Or have you counter-examples?

...

Quote
While many great men in our past established a basic understanding of things this does not mean they understood everything nor how to apply their understanding to tangible things in new ways which help real people.
[...]
I would remind you how many times in our past the popular opinion of something was later proven to be inaccurate, more people believing something does not make it more correct only more popular.

The objection is irrelevant because the fact that a popular opinion of something can be later proven to be inaccurate doesn't imply that it is true in a particular case. Many popular opinions remain accurate. Only facts can prove they are not. We have not one fact proving Tesla could be right about energy transmission at a distance thanks to longitudinal waves.

Quote
The funny thing about wishful thinking is that sometimes wishes come true...

I don't deny it, I agree with you. But once again, it is not a rational argument. It just says: "among all things that can be thought, there can be some that could be true". This assertion is of no help in science. We deal with the physical reality. We need facts, we need observations. If we have no fact, we need at least hypothesis, testable in experiments.
When we have nothing else than pure imagination, providing we have brilliant ideas (which is not common in the free energy field), we can write Sci-Fi books as Jules Verne did. Some of our dreams can become reality, such Jules Verne's submarine, without knowing which in advance. It is a question of statistics. But our goal is not to produce a large amount of crazy ideas while hoping that other people in the future will build real products similar to our ideas, because our ideas are of no help for them in the building itself (otherwise we would have built ourself the machines). Our role is not to dream or let others dream, not to spread virtual technology that should work but don't, but to produce real machines according to a single dream: "free energy".

Quote
...
I was reading an article in Scientific American just last week on this issue whereby the author had developed a theorem proving that science and physics cannot predict technology nor the new science which may evolve from it for obvious reasons. You see science is a description of phenomena which occurs after the fact not before

I don't agree with your last assertion. Science comes not only from previous observations but also from hypothesis. Science has a power of prediction, and so can precede the facts. Naturally the facts must be verified.
For example, electromagnetic waves were predicted by Maxwell before the fact of their production and detection shown in experiments by Hertz.
I agree with you that science and physics cannot predict technology. But technology remains compatible with science (and technologies such electronics are directly by-products of physics). We have no technology that wouldn't work according to the known physics laws.
Therefore if we say that such wishful thinking about a hypothetic technology which obviously contradicts physics laws, can work, then we have to give facts and prove it by experiments. If the experiments confirms the predictions, either the technology is compatible with science in despite appearances or it implies new science: it is just a question of theory to adjust or create.
Unfortunately in the free energy field the most used method following from the wishful thinking consists in denying conventional science in advance ("Lenz's law doesn't apply"), then to show conventional experiments while misinterpreting the results to fit the previous assertion. Naturally if Lenz's law didn't work, we would get easily a perpetual machine, but nobody affirming "Lenz law doesn't apply", is able to present a perpetual machine. The wishful thinking is unable to move anything from virtual to real. It is a terrible waste of time for everybody.