PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-05-26, 04:52:37
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: The MEG revisited  (Read 3638 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2179
F6FLT
Quote
Making something that works not only for the inventor but also for those who duplicate the inventor's plans, producing more energy than it consumes, has, until proven otherwise, never been done. The inventor would have to be a real inventor, and a real inventor is able to transmit his know-how.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You don't know it's "never been done" your just speculating based on your own personal beliefs.

For example, we now have proof UFO's are real, can you explain how they work or there energy source?. Well of course not because it's privileged information held by those who actually understand it. It's on them to decide whether they ever disclose the technology not you. The fact UFO's actually exist is proof enough we still have a lot to learn isn't it?.

It reminds me of the quote, "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", George Berkeley.
Objectively speaking, it doesn't matter whether we believe in free energy technology or not, or that we even exist. There will always be people who know and understand more than we do and will continue to make more progress. I take comfort in this fact...

Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 100
Making something that works is very easy, it is within the reach of everyone in all fields.

Making something that works by producing more energy than it consumes is very easy for the person who does it. Either he persuades himself, a matter of cognitive bias and/or incompetence to make measurements, or he wants to persuade others when he knows he doesn't have it, a matter of ego or scam.

Making something that works not only for the inventor but also for those who duplicate the inventor's plans, producing more energy than it consumes, has, until proven otherwise, never been done. The inventor would have to be a real inventor, and a real inventor is able to transmit his know-how.

I see your statement supporting point 2, but we need an invention supporting point 3.

My self charging battery holder is shown in my picture of my new Test Circuit.  The reason it's part of that picture is I'm working on finding a way to do it without using the pesky little "100,00 Volt" modules.  Run them for 15 seconds under load and they'll burn out.  (Then it takes five weeks to get some more). The load being a window pane sheet glass capacitor (not shown), feeding noisy crackling through the long spark gap next to the end battery on the top row.

Two parallel 4.5V strings.  One string will power one module.  That does drain the batteries down pretty quickly.  So I use two strings of batteries tied together, with two modules tied at their inputs.  Configurated for normal operation, the two modules are glued to the side of the battery pack.  I made that case out of yard stick wood, cut with a hack saw and glued together.  I clamp the batteries between electrode springs drilled off of old 6V lantern batteries.

The readings from all individual cells remain uniform, even while charging.  After making a few 7/8" crazy white sparks, the reading from the battery case can easily drop to 4.2V.

The way it's wired up is the modules'input wires twist together, one for the battteries' black wire, and one for the push button switch on the top left end.  The top HV wires from the modules twist together and connect to the nearby spark gap screw.  The lower HV wire from the top module has a sharp 90° kink about an inch out.  Then it pigtails with the last wire from the bottom module, and on to the input side of the sheet glass capacitor.  This capacitor's output powers the other screw of the spark gap.

Without the Inductor, the spark still has a biphasic composition.  It has two sources, one with a phase shifting inductive bend ("kink").  This kind of spark energy magnetizes the wood behind the spark gap.  (Think of my recently mentioned wood solenoid).  The energized wood immediately causes charged particles inside the battery to migrate towards the outer cup electrode, recharging the battery.

The magnetism in the wood persists for quite a while.  During one test, the reading reached 1.71V - on each cell - and one battery's pressure seal blew out with a loud hissing.  This was after about 24 hours of self charging.

So this thing powers itself to produce the effect, then recharges, without additional input, to a higher level than needed for the next cycle.  The recharging may be slow, but that is still Free Energy.  If we can strap it at 4.5V, that's enough for the next shot, when needed, plus a steady trickle of self charging potential beyond that.

This is an easy build for observing the increasing potential next to the magnetically conditioned wood.  WITH a usable amount of power, every now and then.  Next, we can think about where to put a spark gap with a car battery.  And I'm working on the self charging from two angles, with and without an expensive Inductor.
   
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-05-26, 04:52:37