It helps to put it into perspective...
If we input X energy into a good LC circuit it produces a millisecond dampened oscillation.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to move a magnet on a tuning fork it oscillates for many minutes.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to move a magnet on my magnetic bearings it oscillates for hours.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to charge a good capacitor it can be stored for years.
partzman
Please explain how we can draw excess energy from any one of these concepts. They are all conservative are they not? The first step to FE is understanding energy and the concepts of generation and dissipation. For example, the dampened LC oscillation below is what most consider "normal". Thus, gross inefficiency is the normal simply because most don't know any better. I mean look at it, in less than 10 cycles all the energy has been dissipated. In fact, almost all the greatest FE inventors didn't start with FE. They were more interested if finding ways to sustain electrical oscillations within there circuits. They were seeking ways to sustain the oscillations for progressively longer periods of time until at some point the system became "self-sustaining". In fact, Nikola Tesla was obsessed with this phenomena and often mentioned how a bell in vacuum could oscillate for months. He was also obsessed with resonance and how a small oscillator could theoretically destroy a large building or bridge. These concepts should sound familiar because almost every FE inventor mentions them. They describe how a very small input can become near self-sustaining but also act on other things producing much larger effects. Of course, we should understand a small oscillation storing energy in a larger element producing a larger effect is not FE, energy is always conserved. However this concept can produce a non-intuitive, non-conservative result. For example, suppose we have a car sitting in the desert on the sand. If we wanted to bury the car in the sand almost everyone without exception has only one thing on there mind which is to dig a big hole. We all know digging a hole is how everyone buries things and most have no idea how to do it any different. However there is an easier way in which we don't move the sand per say but let the car sink into the sand. We simply stuff a pipe under the car, blow pressurized air into the sand causing the particles to oscillate rendering it fluid and the car sinks into the sand. The example above is non-intuitive, non-conservative because the amount of energy to oscillate the sand rendering it fluid is much smaller than shoveling and lifting all the heavy sand out of the way to dig a hole like some kind of primitive cave man. Here we can see science still applies were just solving the problem using intelligence versus brute force. This conceptual, creative kind of thinking and intelligence is the reason why many inventors found FE easy while everyone else still finds it impossible. As Nikola Tesla said... "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." Regards AC
---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger
I take comfort in the fact there are people magnitudes more intelligent than I could ever be developing new technology I will probably never understand. It proves evolution works...
|
Author
Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate (Read 49828 times)
