AISEG AI Smart Electromagnetic Generator

[Allcanadian]

This is a new thread on the AISEG not related to any heat related theories which I find weak at best.

In the video's SEMP states...
-By harnessing the power of the "Inductive Kickback" in a winding coil.
-and activating the magnetic movement of the material.
-we achieved an unmatched energy efficiency of 1769%.
-based on the theory of "bandwagoning".

This should sound familiar because most FE devices are based on these principals. Inductive kickback means utilizing an inductive discharge or collapse of the magnetic field around a coil or in this case coils. Nikola Tesla mastered this technology and often spoke of the unique effects concerning an inductive discharge. Next we have the term bandwagoning derived from bandwagon or a group movement. Bandwagoning refers to the use of many coils acting as a group to manipulate magnetic fields versus only one coil.

For example, the Hubbard device has all these same attributes. It utilizes switched power and an inductive discharge, has many coils often showing eight coils around a center coil. What seems to throw many people off is when they tend to over complicate everything supposing some magic happening with a magnetic field. Having seen the real effect first hand I can clarify this point. There are no thermal effects or magic happening in the core. Extra energy is being transformed in the system which tends to show up in the cores but this is not the origin of the energy gain. This is true because countless other similar systems used no iron cores and worked just as well. Ergo, nothing is happening in the core(s), get over it, move on.

What does happen in most cases is that the inventor being magnitudes more knowledgeable than others simply made up an effect to protect there technology and patents. As I told one person, I could make up literally any effect and they would have to trust me because they are not intelligent enough to know the difference. I could say it's magic cores or magic wires or magic fields and they would have to accept it because they understand little if nothing about advanced electrodynamics. Why would an average person think they have the capacity to understand something it took an inventor decades of hard work to discover?. Will average people be giving brain surgeons and rocket scientists tips on how to there job as well?.

So the first lesson is that most of what an inventor discloses and patents does not relate directly to what is actually happening. The first step is to look at the technology, what we see as a working device, then compare this to other similar technologies. What do we see?, many coils stacked close on top of one another and switched with many big semiconductors having large heat sinks. What does this tell you?, it means there probably switching the coils sequentially with large impulse currents. Why else would they use a large number of individual switches having large heat sinks?. So basic observations and a little deductive reasoning go a long way.

From the patent,

13. DC generator of non-destructive type per p. 12, in which many anchors are connected sequenced with each other.

14. DC generator of non-rotten type per p. 12, in which the set of excitation magnets is distributed into the first group of excitation magnets and the second group of excitation magnets, and the first group of exclusion magnets and the second group of excitation magnets are alternatively put into action.

AC

[F6FLT]

-By harnessing the power of the "Inductive Kickback" in a winding coil.

The "Inductive Kickback" is exactly what we put in the coil. A coil is charged with current just as a capacitor is charged with voltage. In linear elements, you never get back more than you put in.

-and activating the magnetic movement of the material.

What is "magnetic movement"? We know about the movement of a magnetic part, we know about variations in magnetic fields, we know about spin, but "magnetic movement" is a meaningless expression.

-we achieved an unmatched energy efficiency of 1769%.

Efficiency precision given to within 1 per thousand 

-based on the theory of "bandwagoning".

And now the invention of a new word to make us believe in the reality of a new principle. This jargon is for naive investors, not scientists.
Add to this their allusions on their website to an earth saved thanks to their own energy, and it reminds you of nothing? If I say "motionless" and "green", really nothing? And replace "spin" with "bandwagoning", still nothing? You've got a short memory.

This new device definitely reminds me of the same meaningless jargon we heard around the Holycomb Energy System. History hasn't taught us a lesson, and every time a new smooth talker comes along, we fall back on it.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

The "Inductive Kickback" is exactly what we put in the coil. A coil is charged with current just as a capacitor is charged with voltage. In linear elements, you never get back more than you put in.

I think you meant the inductive kickback output energy is exactly what we input because energy is conserved. It's well enough but your not saying anything most don't already know. It's like saying the sky is blue, I agree, so what?.

What is "magnetic movement"? We know about the movement of a magnetic part, we know about variations in magnetic fields, we know about spin, but "magnetic movement" is a meaningless expression.

The patent quote was a translation to English so they might mean a "magnetic moment" ie. strength and orientation of a field. It could also relate to domain flipping so it's hard to say but hardly meaningless.

And now the invention of a new word to make us believe in the reality of a new principle. This jargon is for naive investors, not scientists.
Add to this their allusions on their website to an earth saved thanks to their own energy, and it reminds you of nothing? If I say "motionless" and "green", really nothing? And replace "spin" with "bandwagoning", still nothing? You've got a short memory.

New terminology like "bandwagoning" to describe something is quite common, more so in science and invention. Where do you think all the old terms you use came from?. The term is actually quite ingenious and gives us some insight into what might be happening in this device.

So I questioned ChatGPT about the term because I'm a professional and always follow through.
Question;
Define the term bandwagoning

Answer;
Bandwagoning refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups align themselves with a particular idea, trend, or opinion primarily because it is gaining popularity or momentum.

Hmm, a phenomena where groups (of coils?) align themselves (there magnetic field polarity?) primarily to gain momentum (a larger magnetic moment?).

When quizzed further ChatGPT had more to say...

Now, drawing a loose analogy to "bandwagoning": imagine each coil as a contributor to a magnetic "bandwagon." Individually, each coil creates its own magnetic field, but when placed together (series or parallel), their magnetic fields can interact and enhance or modify each other's effects. In this sense, the coils "band together" electromagnetically, influencing each other's behavior and collectively contributing to a stronger magnetic field or more efficient mutual induction.

I imagine this means little to most but to a real FE researcher or inventor this is gold. The AI then goes on to say this analogy is more figurative than literal. Of course it is but every major scientific discovery also started out as an idea or theory. So if I did this I expect this to happen but what if I did this other thing instead where I have no idea what might happen?. That other crazy thing, where you have no idea what might happen?, that's the kind of scenario we are looking for.

Think of it this way, in no scenario or by any equation or calculations do a bunch of random particles and fields sum up to a living conscious being such as yourself. You see, every time you look in the mirror you see proof you have literally no idea what your doing. So according to your own logic you are impossible and should not exist. I think it's funny, I talk with people having stupid IQ's you can't even imagine and I run this by them. They get this look like a deer stuck in our headlights and just freeze. So I'm just saying we still have a lot to learn which is kind of cool.

AC

[maxmalone]

I agree that this company was looking for investors. This was visible in the cooperation agreements signed. What's going on with it now? Websites don't work. Why ?
because it works or were they scammers?
Someone wrote that Korea is people who have honor and do not lie. I don't know, but lying is one thing and misleading is another.
Core manufacturers know a lot about what they do and I don't think they didn't see the possibility of making a core with FE properties.

Everyone would like this or that to finally turn out to be true.
How many FE devices do we know? and how many are real?

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
I think you meant the inductive kickback output energy is exactly what we input because energy is conserved. It's well enough but your not saying anything most don't already know. It's like saying the sky is blue, I agree, so what?.
...

Some claim that as long as we see the sky as blue, we shouldn't say it's blue but imagine it would be red or black, then discuss for months and years why it would be red or black, and come up with smoky theories to explain what nobody observes.

In French, we have an expression for this kind of idle discussion: "discussing sex of angels". No one has ever seen one, they can't be observed, no analysis is possible, you can say one thing about them and its opposite with equal confidence, but some people go so far as to discuss details like their gender. With stuff like holycomb or AISEG, it's the same thing.

I'm interested in the observable facts of our universe and the reasons for them. And I point out to those who invent extravagant laws to explain facts they've never verified - and for good reason, they're not facts but fables - that it's not for their imaginary universes that we need energy, since in their imaginary universes there are already hundreds if not thousands of free-energy machines - they're the ones who've told us this over and over again - but for ours.

If you're interested in fables, don't stick to science and technology - you'll be disappointed. Get closer to religion or science fiction. You'll never be able to help anyone in their practical everyday lives, but at least you'll be giving them the illusion of hope (which, of course, will never materialize).

[F6FLT]

...
Someone wrote that Korea is people who have honor and do not lie. I don't know, but lying is one thing and misleading is another.
...

It's true that their culture lends itself less to this kind of thing than Western culture. But as everyone will have noticed, Asia, and South Korea in particular, are converging towards Western culture. So I don't think we can rule out scams today simply because the people behind them are of this or that nationality.

How many FE devices do we know? and how many are real?

First question : hundreds, even thousands.
Second question : none. That's why we're always searching, and that's why we wonder why those who tell us that each new device is surely real without saying that the old ones didn't work, have this need to always perpetuate their useless approach since, according to them, we already have FE. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified in psychiatry to understand these intellectual aberrations.   

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

I'm interested in the observable facts of our universe and the reasons for them. And I point out to those who invent extravagant laws to explain facts they've never verified - and for good reason, they're not facts but fables - that it's not for their imaginary universes that we need energy, since in their imaginary universes there are already hundreds if not thousands of free-energy machines - they're the ones who've told us this over and over again - but for ours.

I find your viewpoint a little hypocritical.

And I point out to those who invent extravagant laws to explain facts they've never verified

Have you verified all the laws of science first hand for yourself then?. Well no of course you couldn't and basically take it on faith that someone else has all there facts straight. Case in point, recently everyone including the best and brightest in science completely botched the down wind faster than the wind concept. I mean there supposed facts, logic and reason completely failed them. In fact, even when they were shown "the facts" by a simple machine with only three moving parts they still managed to completely screw it up. So this notion that any facts should always be obvious and observable is obviously false.

If you're interested in fables, don't stick to science and technology - you'll be disappointed. Get closer to religion or science fiction. You'll never be able to help anyone in their practical everyday lives, but at least you'll be giving them the illusion of hope (which, of course, will never materialize).

That's another interesting comment, you do realize all the science and technology we know today was considered fables and science fiction no more than three generations ago?. Your great great grandfather would call you a raving lunatic for even suggesting all we know today could be possible. Ah but all the older generation are always claiming nothing can change but it always does.

That is the basis of your apparently misguided argument is it not?. That we are as smart as it gets and we have everything figured out based on the current facts we know and can do no better?. So we can just ignore the last 1000 years of facts proving we are always making progress and everything changes.

AC

[F6FLT]

...
Have you verified all the laws of science first hand for yourself then?

Sophism  . very well known and documented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance.

I haven't been to the moon either and I know there are craters.

you do realize all the science and technology we know today was considered fables and science fiction no more than three generations ago?
...

Do you realize that you're telling us that since the idea of an earth revolving around the sun was extravagant in Galileo's day, then the equally extravagant idea of a flat earth (or the holycomb) should be considered today?
Your reasoning is so full of logical fallacies that we can't even respond to it on the substance.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT
My point holds in the context given.

Have you verified all the laws of science first hand for yourself then?. Well no of course you couldn't and basically take it on faith that someone else has all there facts straight. Case in point, recently everyone including the best and brightest in science completely botched the down wind faster than the wind concept. I mean there supposed facts, logic and reason completely failed them. In fact, even when they were shown "the facts" by a simple machine with only three moving parts they still managed to completely screw it up. So this notion that any facts should always be obvious and observable is obviously false.

Countless people jumped to the wrong conclusions supposing the laws of science were violated when if fact they were not. Mainly because they were to lazy to build a $30 DWFTTW experiment and prove the matter for themselves. It's mind boggling because basically everyone claimed the "science" proved DWFTTW was impossible when in fact the real science proved them all wrong.

Do you realize that you're telling us that since the idea of an earth revolving around the sun was extravagant in Galileo's day, then the equally extravagant idea of a flat earth (or the holycomb) should be considered today?
Your reasoning is so full of logical fallacies that we can't even respond to it on the substance.

Not at all and once again you have taken my statement out of context.

What I said was...

That's another interesting comment, you do realize all the science and technology we know today was considered fables and science fiction no more than three generations ago?. Your great great grandfather would call you a raving lunatic for even suggesting all we know today could be possible. Ah but all the older generation are always claiming nothing can change but it always does.

Implying we have proof science is always evolving and changing.

I did a quick fact check because I always fact check and ChatGPT mirrored my own thoughts to a tee.
Question is science changing?

ChatGPT answer,

Yes, science is constantly evolving and changing. This evolution occurs due to several factors:

Advancements in Knowledge: New discoveries and breakthroughs continually expand our understanding of the natural world. These discoveries often lead to revisions of existing theories or the development of entirely new ones.

Technological Progress: Advances in technology, such as more powerful instruments and computational tools, enable scientists to conduct experiments and gather data in ways that were previously impossible. This leads to new insights and challenges old assumptions.

Reevaluation of Theories: As more evidence accumulates, scientific theories are subjected to scrutiny and revision. This process ensures that scientific knowledge remains current and reflects the most accurate understanding possible.

Interdisciplinary Connections: Science increasingly intersects with other disciplines, such as technology, engineering, mathematics, and even social sciences. These interdisciplinary connections can lead to new perspectives and approaches in scientific research.

Global Collaboration: In today's interconnected world, scientists from different countries and backgrounds collaborate on research projects, bringing diverse perspectives and methodologies to scientific inquiry.

Overall, the dynamic nature of science ensures that it is always in flux, adapting to new information and refining our understanding of the universe.

Oh wait there's more...

Question, is the present change in science exponential?

ChatGPT answer,

Yes, the present change in science can indeed be characterized as exponential in many respects. Here are several reasons why:

Technological Advancements: The rapid pace of technological advancement, particularly in fields like artificial intelligence, genomics, and nanotechnology, is driving exponential growth in scientific capabilities. Technologies such as high-throughput sequencing, machine learning algorithms, and supercomputing have revolutionized scientific research by enabling faster data collection, analysis, and simulation.

Big Data and Computational Power: The availability of vast amounts of data (big data) and increasingly powerful computational resources allows scientists to tackle complex problems at scales and speeds that were previously unimaginable. This exponential growth in data generation and processing capabilities is transforming fields such as astronomy, climate science, and bioinformatics.
   
Overall, the exponential nature of change in science today reflects a dynamic landscape where rapid advancements and transformative breakthroughs continually reshape our understanding of the universe and our capabilities to innovate.

AC

[maxmalone]

Everyone is surprised that DWFTTW works. Why ? Doesn't a sailboat sail against the wind in a certain orientation? this setting is similar to the angle of a propeller blade.
This arrangement allows for a force perpendicular to the vehicle's motion If I didn't see it, I would say it's not possible, but when you see it, you start to understand that sometimes you have to change the angle of view.

[F6FLT]

Everyone is surprised that DWFTTW works. Why ? Doesn't a sailboat sail against the wind in a certain orientation? this setting is similar to the angle of a propeller blade.
This arrangement allows for a force perpendicular to the vehicle's motion If I didn't see it, I would say it's not possible, but when you see it, you start to understand that sometimes you have to change the angle of view.

I couldn't agree more. Common sense is not scientific common sense. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that scientific sense is common sense taken to the extreme.
As a windsurfer, I've always been able to go upwind, even if it's a bit painful and takes time to win against the wind. On a sailboat, it's a bit easier.