Free Energy is easy

Author Topic: Free Energy is easy (Read 33563 times)

Topic Options

bistander

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #25 on: 2024-08-14, 22:17:04 »

Full Member

Posts: 148

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-14, 16:19:51

Back to the topic at hand...
[....]
Consider the excited free electron jumping the band gap in a solar cell. The excited free electron may be jiggling back and forth but produces a linear motion or migration across the gap from (+) to (-). It reminds me of the Inertial Transmission having an rotating eccentric mass attached to a one way bearing. I replicated the Constantinesco device and it's a brilliant concept. http://rexresearch.com/constran/1constran.htm
The energy of the input or oscillating mass is always perfectly conserved until such time as the inertia of the mass can produce enough force to overcome the load force. It never wastes energy trying to fight the load like most concepts, it always conserves the energy.

You see, you just learned something new of real value which can be applied in countless ways.

What I just explained relates to Nikola Tesla's brilliant claim that all electrical systems can in fact be treated as mechanical systems. They are mechanical systems which simply act on a much smaller level we cannot see. The only real goal is to apply a force (field) to a mass (particle) producing motion (a current) in the most efficient way. It's easy and we could literally dispense with all the fancy equations and terminology so many seem obsessed with. This is called working with first principals, to discard all which is not required and only focus on what is. To discard all the complexity and only focus on what we want.

AC

Quote

Back to the topic at hand...

The topic was easy Free Energy on an OverUnityResarch board. How is a transmission or torque converter relevant?

Quote

The only real goal is to apply a force (field) to a mass (particle) producing motion (a current) in the most efficient way.

No. The goal is Free Energy via Overunity. Efficiency, although desirable, is not a path to OU. Unity is the limit for loss reduction.
bi

Jose Antonio

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #26 on: 2024-08-15, 05:19:59 »

Newbie

Posts: 34

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-04, 17:59:17

I see a lot of people doing different things but I'm not sure they understand how FE works.

First, there are a few simple rules.
1)Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, key word transformed.

Right out of the gate you got bullet point 1 wrong. The Law of Conservation states that energy can only be transferred and transformed, not just transformed as you stated. The issue with your comment is that you are modifying the facts to better support your argument, but if stated correctly it would work against your argument (as you did so eloquently yourself at the end of your post).

It appears your stuck on the transform part, and think that it’s the only possible underlining principle an FE device incorporates. Then, you go on to spread internet falsehoods regarding refrigeration COP, please stop.

As someone who has been in the industry for decades it is a pet peeve of mine when internet theorist armed with a Wikipedia education make false claims regarding the COP of systems they know nothing about. A refrigeration system DOES NOT transform energy as a product, it only can TRANSFER energy as noted by the law (Point A to Point B energy transfer). In a refrigeration system, COP is a variable (unknown to many) that represents energy transfer, and that is completely different from the efficiency of a diesel driven generator. Those systems do not transfer energy, they convert energy through a specific transformation process.

In a refrigeration system, the rated efficiency (aka nameplate data) IS ONLY at a specific set of conditions. The BTU output of ALL refrigeration systems is variable even with a constant volume compressor. You would only know this through real world experience.

As an example. Residential AC systems (aka high temperature refrigeration) are rated at 95 Deg.F Outdoor Air conditions. So when we are coupled with an engineered indoor evaporator system and about a 78 Deg.F air temperature traveling across the face of the evaporator moving at a rate of an estimated 400 CFM per ton of cooling and a speed of 400 - 650 fpm velocity at 95 Deg.F outdoor air I will have rated nameplate BTU transfer and achieve rated COP.

BUT when outdoor air temperatures rise above rated outdoor (engineered) design of 95 Deg.F, guess what, the refrigeration effect is reduced and you can no longer achieve nameplate transfer even if indoor conditions are stable within design specifications (but that is not a possibility).So in other words your system gets smaller and can’t deliver nameplate BTU transfer (per hour). Here nameplate COP plummets.

Just ask anyone in Arizona if a 5-ton AC system sitting in 115 Degree heat actually actually delivers 60k btu’s. Anyone who thinks it does has no knowledge of the physics associated with the transfer of energy utilizing a refrigerant. It GETS BETTER, what do you think happens when your AC system, that is rated for nameplate btu/hr @95 DegF, is operating well below that value, like 78 DegF. (outside air) Well guess what, compressor amps drop dramatically and COP goes through the roof on the grounds that now, per pound of refrigerant, I can capture and transport more heat energy and that leads to greater nameplate capacity at greatly reduced energy consumption. Not uncommon at all for a 5-ton system (60k btu/hr) to deliver over 75k btu/hr (been there done that with industrial systems). This is because refrigeration is based on energy transfer, at specific conditions, and that is a variable driven by the temperature/pressure relationship.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-04, 17:59:17

So when we speak of a FE device we are referring to a device which converts or transforms naturally occurring energy already present.

What do you mean by when WE speak? Who in the heck is WE? A system that is based on energy transformation is maxed at 100% output (excluding losses). A system based on these principles can never achieve overunity. This should be common knowledge (and sense) and WE may want to study the Law of Conservation.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-04, 17:59:17

In effect, what everyone is looking for is Maxwell's Demon and they would do well to research it.

Certainly not me. If your looking for a more efficient energy TRANSFORMATION technique all hope is lost because the Law of Conservation, as you quoted incorrectly at the start of your post, will not allow you to transform more energy than what you are starting with. But, a more efficient energy TRANSFER technique is the only clear and real possibility.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-04, 17:59:17

In fact, most FE inventors claimed the output is independent of the input. The input does not create the output the input controls the process which determines the output.

I agree with you here and much like a refrigeration system the compressor, plays a part in the amount of energy that is transferred from point A to point B. Output being independent is stated by FE inventors because they know the difference between energy transfer and transformation. Here is a little mind fu@k for you. Even in the OFF cycle (ie compressor not running) a refrigeration system is transferring energy with no power being utilized. How is this possible? Is it now overunity? Has nothing to do with transformation of energy BUT everything to do with understanding energy transfer.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-04, 17:59:17

In effect, the input energizes Maxwell's Demon which then allows it to control the flow of energy within the system. Similar to powering up a circuit to control some traffic lights. The energy in the circuit is not the energy of the traffic, the circuit only controls the traffic.

You should have stopped at the prior statement, now your making claims of flow (which is a transfer) of energy where at the beginning of your post you chose to educate people that the keyword in the Law of Conservation was transformed. Engineering distinguishes between transfer and transformation.

So if you correct your statement to fall inline with your logic it would say “ In effect, the input energizes Maxwell's Demon which then allows it to control the transformation of energy within the system”. Do you now see how that mindset is flawed? Your Demon will never transform more output than input (requires understanding of conservation). The solution has to be in the energy transfer.

I am not trying to be a jerk here, your understanding of conservation, along with energy transfer through the refrigerant process and its associated COP calculation are all armchair internet based. I have a hard time sitting idle when falsehoods are distributed as if it were grounded theory based on decades of real world engineering experience. I am sure I can learn from you, but this isn't neither the forum or the subject matter. I also agree with the others in that you do not have an FE device.

-JA

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #27 on: 2024-08-15, 19:56:52 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Bistander

Quote

The topic was easy Free Energy on an OverUnityResarch board. How is a transmission or torque converter relevant?

It is relevant because the inertial concept in question does not apply the input directly to the output. The input can act on the inertial mass and the inertial mass can act on the output but the input cannot act directly on the output. Similar to how Centraflow did not build a simple transformer where the input acts directly on the output. The input acts on an intermediary element which can then act on the output but the input should never act directly on the output because we already know the result, it will not work.

Quote

No. The goal is Free Energy via Overunity. Efficiency, although desirable, is not a path to OU. Unity is the limit for loss reduction.

Does it matter?, if the output is twice the input and a device can do useful work for next to nothing does it matter what we call it?.

On efficiency, look at the history of almost every FE inventor and you will find almost nobody was looking for OU or FE. They were trying to improve the efficiency of devices and stumbled onto an anomaly. As one FE inventor put it, a unexplained gain of 10% in a system which is only 50% efficient is basically useless. So we start by trying to build a system as efficient as possible then take the next step where the output exceeds the input. We should learn how to walk before we try running.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

bistander

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #28 on: 2024-08-15, 21:46:12 »

Full Member

Posts: 148

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-15, 19:56:52

BistanderIt is relevant because the inertial concept in question does not apply the input directly to the output. The input can act on the inertial mass and the inertial mass can act on the output but the input cannot act directly on the output. Similar to how Centraflow did not build a simple transformer where the input acts directly on the output. The input acts on an intermediary element which can then act on the output but the input should never act directly on the output because we already know the result, it will not work.
Does it matter?, if the output is twice the input and a device can do useful work for next to nothing does it matter what we call it?.

On efficiency, look at the history of almost every FE inventor and you will find almost nobody was looking for OU or FE. They were trying to improve the efficiency of devices and stumbled onto an anomaly. As one FE inventor put it, a unexplained gain of 10% in a system which is only 50% efficient is basically useless. So we start by trying to build a system as efficient as possible then take the next step where the output exceeds the input. We should learn how to walk before we try running.

AC

I checked with ChatGPT:

Quote

I said:
Has anyone ever invented free energy or a free energy device or method?

ChatGPT said:

No one has successfully invented or demonstrated a working "free energy" device or method. The concept of "free energy" generally refers to the idea of generating energy without any input, which would violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, particularly the first and second laws. These laws dictate that energy cannot be created or destroyed (only converted from one form to another) and that energy systems naturally progress toward a state of entropy, meaning no system can be perfectly efficient.

Over the years, many individuals have claimed to have developed free energy devices, such as perpetual motion machines, but none of these have been validated by the scientific community. These devices often turn out to be hoaxes, misunderstandings, or result from flawed experiments. Scientific consensus maintains that free energy, as often described, is not possible according to our current understanding of physics.

I said:
Thanks, bi

ChatGPT said:
You're welcome! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

I believe I have said the same thing to you before in my own words.
bi

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #29 on: 2024-08-16, 16:15:45 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

We could ask ChatGPT -is the output of a system always equal to the input in open systems?.

Answer: In open systems, the output is not always equal to the input. Here's why:

-Energy and Matter Exchange: Open systems exchange energy and matter with their environment. This means that the system can gain or lose energy and matter, which can lead to differences between input and output. For example, in a chemical reaction, the input may be certain reactants, but the output will be the products along with any energy released or absorbed.

-System Dynamics: The behavior of open systems is often governed by complex dynamics. In many cases, open systems undergo transformations or processes that change the nature of the input. For example, in biological systems, nutrients (input) are converted into various forms of energy and waste products (output).

-Interactions and Feedback: Open systems can be influenced by feedback mechanisms where the output can affect the input. In such cases, the relationship between input and output can be dynamic and variable.

So in a closed system we only look at the energy within the system ie. (the total energy of an isolated system remains constant). In an open system we must look at the energy withing the system and also the external energy flowing into and out of the system. You see, the output can exceed the input while energy is being conserved if we look at the total energy of an open system.

For example, it would be easy to trick most people into believing I had an OU system. I would show them a big circuit with many coils of wire, switches and signal diodes. The circuit is a joule thief running at 99% efficiency and in sunlight the PN junctions of all the signal diodes acts just like the PN junction of a solar cell. As they move there hand closer the voltage changes and some might think it's the electric field and not shadowing of the diodes. Thus many things could appear as OU depending on our knowledge and understanding. We can also see why efficiency is so important and if the circuit was less efficient we might never notice the extra energy coming from all the diodes. The same seems to be true of most FE devices.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

bistander

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #30 on: 2024-08-16, 16:50:21 »

Full Member

Posts: 148

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-16, 16:15:45

We could ask ChatGPT -is the output of a system always equal to the input in open systems?.

Answer: In open systems, the output is not always equal to the input. Here's why:

-Energy and Matter Exchange: Open systems exchange energy and matter with their environment. This means that the system can gain or lose energy and matter, which can lead to differences between input and output. For example, in a chemical reaction, the input may be certain reactants, but the output will be the products along with any energy released or absorbed.

-System Dynamics: The behavior of open systems is often governed by complex dynamics. In many cases, open systems undergo transformations or processes that change the nature of the input. For example, in biological systems, nutrients (input) are converted into various forms of energy and waste products (output).

-Interactions and Feedback: Open systems can be influenced by feedback mechanisms where the output can affect the input. In such cases, the relationship between input and output can be dynamic and variable.

So in a closed system we only look at the energy within the system ie. (the total energy of an isolated system remains constant). In an open system we must look at the energy withing the system and also the external energy flowing into and out of the system. You see, the output can exceed the input while energy is being conserved if we look at the total energy of an open system.

For example, it would be easy to trick most people into believing I had an OU system. I would show them a big circuit with many coils of wire, switches and signal diodes. The circuit is a joule thief running at 99% efficiency and in sunlight the PN junctions of all the signal diodes acts just like the PN junction of a solar cell. As they move there hand closer the voltage changes and some might think it's the electric field and not shadowing of the diodes. Thus many things could appear as OU depending on our knowledge and understanding. We can also see why efficiency is so important and if the circuit was less efficient we might never notice the extra energy coming from all the diodes. The same seems to be true of most FE devices.

AC

So ChatGPT gives the following information:

Quote

I said:

In physics, explain closed
systems vs open systems.

ChatGPT said:

In physics, the concepts of closed and open systems are used to describe how matter and energy interact with their surroundings.

Closed System:

A closed system is one where no matter is allowed to enter or leave the system, but energy can be exchanged with the surroundings.
Examples: A sealed container of gas or a thermos bottle. In these cases, the amount of gas or liquid within the container remains constant, but heat can flow in or out.

Open System:

An open system, on the other hand, can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings.
Examples: A boiling pot of water. Steam (matter) escapes into the air, and heat (energy) is transferred from the stove to the pot.
The distinction helps in analyzing physical processes by understanding how interactions with the environment affect the system.

From this and your post, I conclude that you consider the internal combustion engine a Free Energy device because considering it an open system, energy output far exceeds energy input; nevermind the exchange of matter with the environment. Your logic defies reason.
bi

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #31 on: 2024-08-16, 20:49:26 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Bistander

Quote

From this and your post, I conclude that you consider the internal combustion engine a Free Energy device because considering it an open system, energy output far exceeds energy input; nevermind the exchange of matter with the environment. Your logic defies reason.

I can understand why a more universal perspective can seem confusing to many. I don't adhere to populism or the popular notion of things and only look at facts and first principals.

For example, can an internal combustion engine be considered a Free Energy device?. Yes it can if the energy source at work is inherently free or without cost. If an engine could split water and combust the hydrogen producing a demonstrable power gain and the water was free then by definition it is a free energy device.

With a few questions to the AI I found the quite logical reason for our disagreement. The AI does not consider a closed system the same as an isolated system where I do. Closed means closed and nothing gets in or out. As well, I do not recognize the notion of an isolated system because an "isolated system" is only a theoretical construct.

Quote

Isolated System: An isolated system, where neither energy nor matter can be exchanged, is a theoretical construct that serves as an ideal model for studying energy conservation in a completely self-contained environment.

Ergo, an isolated system it is not real, it is made up and I do not recognize made up things when using first principals. I do not recognize an isolated system or lines of force or positive charges flowing in wires or imaginary dimensions or any other imaginary things people choose to make up. These false beliefs in imaginary things is probably why so many people continue to fail to produce the desired results.

For example, in an electric free energy device only one concept is relevant. That work is done on the free electrons moving them more than expected thus producing more power which is inherently free of cost. This is a first principal and any other beliefs anyone may have about electrical systems are for the most part irrelevant.

Quote

First-Principles Thinking:
Problem-Solving Approach: First-principles thinking involves breaking down complex problems into their most basic elements (the first principles) and building solutions from there. This approach encourages innovation and creative thinking because it avoids relying on established assumptions or analogies.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

bistander

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #32 on: 2024-08-16, 23:10:17 »

Full Member

Posts: 148

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-08-16, 20:49:26

Bistander
I can understand why a more universal perspective can seem confusing to many. I don't adhere to populism or the popular notion of things and only look at facts and first principals.

For example, can an internal combustion engine be considered a Free Energy device?. Yes it can if the energy source at work is inherently free or without cost. If an engine could split water and combust the hydrogen producing a demonstrable power gain and the water was free then by definition it is a free energy device.

With a few questions to the AI I found the quite logical reason for our disagreement. The AI does not consider a closed system the same as an isolated system where I do. Closed means closed and nothing gets in or out. As well, I do not recognize the notion of an isolated system because an "isolated system" is only a theoretical construct.

Ergo, an isolated system it is not real, it is made up and I do not recognize made up things when using first principals. I do not recognize an isolated system or lines of force or positive charges flowing in wires or imaginary dimensions or any other imaginary things people choose to make up. These false beliefs in imaginary things is probably why so many people continue to fail to produce the desired results.

For example, in an electric free energy device only one concept is relevant. That work is done on the free electrons moving them more than expected thus producing more power which is inherently free of cost. This is a first principal and any other beliefs anyone may have about electrical systems are for the most part irrelevant.

AC

So, for you, Free Energy is easy because you make up your own definitions and rules/laws of physics/nature and consider everybody stupid and irrelevant. You've even made the case that a modern day 5th grader is smarter than, who was it, Copernicus, or Newton?

You are in an elite club; Free Energy Inventors. Have fun.
bi

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #33 on: 2025-06-19, 19:14:05 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Bistander

Quote

So, for you, Free Energy is easy because you make up your own definitions and rules/laws of physics/nature and consider everybody stupid and irrelevant.

I follow the Feynman Technique, https://smowl.net/en/blog/feynman-technique/

Quote

The Feynman technique is a methodology for in-depth understanding of any subject that focuses on studying a concept and explaining it to someone else in a very simple way in order to identify gaps and work on them, before repeating the process until it is simplified as much as possible.

In other words, the process consists of choosing a subject, studying it and being able to explain it to a child so that they understand it, and improving the explanations until they have fully mastered what they have learned.

Similar to a quote attributed to Einstein, “If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself”. Einstein and Feynman used this technique.

My refined process works very well for me.
1)Pick a device or patent and grab a pen and paper.
2)Sketch or break the device down into the many individual components or sections.
3)Study each section and all the possible interactions. Research, research, research.
4)Imagine having to explain how it could work to a six year old. No big words, no complex, unknown or magical interactions. Keep it absolutely simple.
We can only work with what is known at the time and at hand.
5)If our simplified explanation makes no sense throw the paper in the garbage. Start over from scratch with another or new perspective. A reset if you will to avoid unproductive repetition.
6)Repeat the process until something changes then test the idea.

This process does one thing. It reprograms our mind to think clearly and focus on the problem at hand.

This also relates directly to the flow state.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/clearer-thinking-today/202411/how-to-achieve-the-flow-state

Quote

The flow state is a psychological state, first described by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in the 1970s, during which you are fully engaged in an activity, you lose track of time, and you feel a sense of effortless control. He deemed it an “optimal experience”.

In effect, ignoring what everyone else said or did and immersing ourselves in the problem at hand. I mean, if they cannot solve the problem they cannot help us. We need to help ourselves first.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

F6FLT

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #34 on: 2025-06-20, 08:10:03 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2497

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-06-19, 19:14:05

...
Similar to a quote attributed to Einstein, “If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself”. Einstein and Feynman used this technique.
...

Coming from Einstein, that makes sense.
1) he was competent in his field
2) he was aware of the limits of his assertion (i.e. that what a 6-year-old would understand would be an insufficient image to build anything).

Coming from almost all the people who want to teach us about the so-called ‘free energy’ that we're still waiting for, and give endless empty speeches on the subject, neither point 1 nor point 2 are checked.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #35 on: 2025-06-20, 15:46:46 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

With regards to my last post, the focus is on understanding, not so much memorization or people.

For example, many claim a device or machine cannot extract energy from the environment due to a concept called entropy. That energy always moves from high to low and diffuses outward.

This is obviously not true, a tree begins as a small seed then starts extracting energy and matter from it's environment to grow larger for decades. Not only does a tree concentrate energy but it is also a self-organizing, self-repairing, self-replicating system. In principal this process found everywhere in nature could be applied to a FE machine.

I think my claim above is a good example of the Feynman Technique. People can memorize stuff, quote other people and textbooks until they are blue in the face but that does not change the facts. More so, even a six year old can understand the example above. A tree does what many claim cannot be done.

Logically, this leads to another very relevant question. How many people do you know who have the knowledge and understanding to build a self-organizing, self-replicating, energy extracting system like a tree seed?. The answer is zero and the technology is light years beyond our present level of understanding. Yet there is a very good chance we have an example of such an energy extraction system growing in our back yard.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Aking.21

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #36 on: 2025-06-20, 17:00:33 »

Hero Member

Posts: 559

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxV649PKcS8

This is one of Houdini's best videos. He claims energy extraction from an impulse series circuit by the introduction of a coil. He demonstrates that the negative energy present is not
subject to Kirchhoff's laws. Hmm
Well, the energy is cold electricity and by definition does not create a resistance in the wire; therefore, logically, Kchoff cannot apply.
Just saying, comments welcome.

---------------------------

Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #37 on: 2025-06-21, 16:58:24 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Aking21

Quote

This is one of Houdini's best videos. He claims energy extraction from an impulse series circuit by the introduction of a coil. He demonstrates that the negative energy present is not
subject to Kirchhoff's laws. Hmm
Well, the energy is cold electricity and by definition does not create a resistance in the wire; therefore, logically, Kchoff cannot apply.
Just saying, comments welcome.

I think this is pretty easy to explain. Kirchhoff's laws are a variation of hydraulic and gas laws which relate to closed systems. All it claims is that if the system is defined as closed then what goes into a circuit must come out. Even a 6 year old could have invented this law, what goes in is what comes out, it's that simple.

What some call "cold electricity" is low current electricity often at high voltage or frequency. This term probably came from the fact high current produces lots of heat like welding or a resistance heater ergo "hot electricity". The caveat is that high voltage/high frequency produces ionization, radiation and skin effects. These effects can change the voltage and current values within a circuit.

Simply put, if any energy enters or leaves the circuit Kirchhoff's laws would appear to be violated. The problems seems to come about when less experienced people do not include external effects in their assumptions or modelling. If we changed the model, drew a bigger box around the circuit including external effects/energy then Kirchhoff's laws work. Again, all Kirchhoff's laws imply is what goes in must come out in some form. It's not special and like most laws it's basically a statement of the obvious.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

F6FLT

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #38 on: 2025-06-21, 17:50:27 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2497

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-06-20, 15:46:46

...
many claim a device or machine cannot extract energy from the environment due to a concept called entropy.
...

"Many"? Who are you referring to? Ignorant people? No scientist says that or you haven't understood the context of the statement.
If I extract coal and burn it in a power station, I create electricity from the environment.
And I'm increasing entropy.
The same applies to living things. In the end the energy recovered comes from the sun and its effects on the earth.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #39 on: 2025-06-21, 18:58:23 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

F6FLT

Quote

If I extract coal and burn it in a power station, I create electricity from the environment.
And I'm increasing entropy.
The same applies to living things. In the end the energy recovered comes from the sun and its effects on the earth.

That was the response I was looking for.

Solar radiation from the Sun allowed plants to concentrate energy and material. When the plants and animals died and were buried they became a form of hydrocarbon we call coal. The plants/coal are energy carriers and when we burn the coal we liberate the solar energy stored within it from thousands/millions of years ago.

This only increases entropy locally for a limited time because other plants and material will absorb the heat, CO2 and H2O liberated by burning the coal. We need to remember the Earth is a semi-closed system and the conservation of energy and mass apply. Thus entropy/radiation is generally balanced by syntropy/concentration here on Earth.

It's strange, I agree entropy applies and energy tends to radiate outward. However where do you think all that energy goes?... nowhere?. The COE demands that any energy radiated must at some point in time be absorbed by something else. Yet many people seem infatuated with entropy and ignore syntropy.

Question to ChatGPT, what is syntropy?.

Answer,

Quote

Syntropy is a concept that appears in various contexts—especially in systems theory, biology, and speculative physics. However, it does not have a single, widely accepted scientific definition. Here's a breakdown of how the term is used:

In Systems Theory / Theoretical Biology
Syntropy is proposed as the opposite of entropy. Where entropy leads to disorder, decay, and increasing randomness (as in the Second Law of Thermodynamics), syntropy refers to: Increasing order, Coherence, Organization, Movement toward complexity and life.

Key idea: Entropy drives systems to decay, while syntropy drives systems toward self-organization.

Ironically, Syntropy is not formally recognized in mainstream physics. The confusion seems to revolve around the fact that syntropy is not a force more so a natural process. Weird isn't it?, that physics would basically ignore "living things" and the sole reason for their own existence?. So in their strange little world we can fire a bullet (entropy) but it never lands anywhere (syntropy), lol.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Aking.21	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #40 on: 2025-06-21, 22:23:27 »
Hero Member Posts: 559	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxV649PKcS8 I am more interested in the claims made about a node appearing across a wire, and that this is a gateway into extracting energy from outside the circuit. --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #41 on: 2025-06-22, 01:41:30 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Aking21

Quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxV649PKcS8
I am more interested in the claims made about a node appearing across a wire, and that this is a gateway into extracting energy from outside the circuit.

I watched many similar video's which seem like a comedy of errors and misplaced terms now. Here I would agree with F6FLT the resident critic.

So, the circuit is recognized as a common joule thief or blocking oscillator timed to produce a short HF pulse train when the magnet aligns with the coil. The "inductive discharge" when the power to the coil is cut is what houdini calls "negative energy". In fact the electric polarity has reversed but the current flow is still in the forward direction. It's not "negative energy" the electric polarity of the coil has reversed and is well known to most working with coils or inductance.

The supposed "node" is also a known effect. I replicated the Tesla hair pin circuit which is in fact a modified Lecher line circuit. Tesla described how his HV/HF circuit produced nodes ie wavelengths as short as one cm long. I imagine houdini read Tesla's lectures on the effect and included it in his own theories. However it begs the question whether a 12v modified joule thief circuit could produce this kind of frequency. You see a 1 cm wavelength equates to a frequency of 30 GHz. This kind of frequency is anything but trivial.

In the video Houdini's theory then supposes that said nodes act across the load powering it then proceed to act across the mm gap of the battery plates. A 1 mm wavelength equates to a frequency of 300 GHz. So how did the frequency magically increase from 30 to 300 GHz in the short piece of wire between the load and the battery?.

Here's the thing, I have no problem showing a 12v battery with a measured voltage of 50v much more than houdini is showing. How did I do it?, use very short pulses of 100v which are retained on the surface of the battery plates long enough to show an average voltage of 50v on your DMM. It's not magic, it's a known effect called a "surface charge" to most people experimenting with pulsed charging systems.

In fact, on the extreme end of the spectrum I tried charging a 12v battery with 50 KV impulses. I could light a number of LED's simply by touching the plastic case of the battery as if by magic. Why do something so stupid?, because experimenters must experiment.

Let's ask ChatGPT

Question, can pulse charging a battery produce residual charge showing an incorrect voltage?.

Answer,

Quote

Yes, pulse charging can sometimes produce a residual or surface charge that may show an incorrect or misleading voltage reading—especially shortly after charging stops.

Here's why: When a battery is pulse charged, short bursts of high current are applied intermittently rather than a steady charge. This can cause the surface of the electrodes in the battery to become temporarily polarized, leading to a surface charge.

Surface charge is a thin layer of higher-than-actual voltage on the plates, This voltage doesn’t represent the true state of charge of the battery, It can cause a voltmeter to read higher than the actual voltage—sometimes misleading the user into thinking the battery is more charged than it really is.

I get it, back in 2006 my FE chat group used to be all in on houdini. It's kind of like a phase before we move forward and realize how naive we were. Lots of stuff seemed cool back then but not so much today. We live and we learn.

Best Regards
AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Aking.21

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #42 on: 2025-06-28, 21:27:00 »

Hero Member

Posts: 559

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-06-22, 01:41:30

Aking21
I watched many similar video's which seem like a comedy of errors and misplaced terms now. Here I would agree with F6FLT the resident critic.

So, the circuit is recognized as a common joule thief or blocking oscillator timed to produce a short HF pulse train when the magnet aligns with the coil. The "inductive discharge" when the power to the coil is cut is what houdini calls "negative energy". In fact the electric polarity has reversed but the current flow is still in the forward direction. It's not "negative energy" the electric polarity of the coil has reversed and is well known to most working with coils or inductance.

The supposed "node" is also a known effect. I replicated the Tesla hair pin circuit which is in fact a modified Lecher line circuit. Tesla described how his HV/HF circuit produced nodes ie wavelengths as short as one cm long. I imagine houdini read Tesla's lectures on the effect and included it in his own theories. However it begs the question whether a 12v modified joule thief circuit could produce this kind of frequency. You see a 1 cm wavelength equates to a frequency of 30 GHz. This kind of frequency is anything but trivial.

In the video Houdini's theory then supposes that said nodes act across the load powering it then proceed to act across the mm gap of the battery plates. A 1 mm wavelength equates to a frequency of 300 GHz. So how did the frequency magically increase from 30 to 300 GHz in the short piece of wire between the load and the battery?.

Here's the thing, I have no problem showing a 12v battery with a measured voltage of 50v much more than houdini is showing. How did I do it?, use very short pulses of 100v which are retained on the surface of the battery plates long enough to show an average voltage of 50v on your DMM. It's not magic, it's a known effect called a "surface charge" to most people experimenting with pulsed charging systems.

In fact, on the extreme end of the spectrum I tried charging a 12v battery with 50 KV impulses. I could light a number of LED's simply by touching the plastic case of the battery as if by magic. Why do something so stupid?, because experimenters must experiment.

Let's ask ChatGPT

Question, can pulse charging a battery produce residual charge showing an incorrect voltage?.

Answer,
I get it, back in 2006 my FE chat group used to be all in on houdini. It's kind of like a phase before we move forward and realize how naive we were. Lots of stuff seemed cool back then but not so much today. We live and we learn.

Best Regards
AC

Ha! This guy's going all in on Houdini who he calls "Bendini". Gonna be fun to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eSGd93ND4

---------------------------

Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #43 on: 2025-06-30, 02:54:04 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Aking21

Quote

Ha! This guy's going all in on Houdini who he calls "Bendini". Gonna be fun to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eSGd93ND4

Rookies, lol, I like the enthusiasm.

It looks like he is doing a lot of things right most people overlook. Note he describes the setup as a HV/HF pulse motor which is fundamentally true. People playing around with anything under 5 KV sharp discharge spikes are basically wasting their time. He also winds the coils in separately switched twisted bundles of conductors which is important. Again, if you don't do this right and follow instructions you get nothing. Under the right conditions I can see his setup could produce positive results.

I agree the video sounds kind of comical but I look at the observable facts and this guy is probably closer than 99% of the amateurs I have seen. To be honest I like him, he is well spoken, to the point and ambitious.

Here's a few tips for the guys still doing real experiments. So on this kind of setup I used hall effect sensors on the coils to determine the magnitude of the external magnetic field present in each coil. This data was correlated with the voltage and current input using a microcomputer. This shows us the efficiency or how effective our input is working while isolating the sensors from the HV circuit running at 5 KV+. If your doing something right we see the magnetic field in the core increase which then translates to the supposed "anomaly" of an increase in current output vs the input. The anomaly shows up as a magnetic field change in the core first which is larger than expected.

You see the reason 99% of people fail is they don't understand science or logic. They are weekend warriors or textbook hero's. They don't understand how to apply sensors to gather all the relevant data to determine what is normal, what is abnormal and exactly what is happening in any given time period. Personally I thought this was pretty basic. We sensor the crap out of everything, monitor everything with a computer to crunch all the data which then tells us when something unusual happens. Yet we see a lot of people still playing around with primitive DMM's or DSO's which is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Here is where real math and statistics come into play. So if you want to play around with primitive instruments like a DMM or DSO which can only capture a limited time frame of one variable you have to interpret based on prior art your hooped. Your finished before you have even started.

I like to use this example, So how many ways can we order all the 52 cards in a pack?
http://www.murderousmaths.co.uk/cardperms.htm
80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636, 856,403,766,975,289,505,440, 883,277,824,000,000,000,000
“Any time you pick up a well-shuffled deck, you are almost certainly holding an arrangement of cards that has never before existed and might not exist again.”

Now suppose we have a circuit with 52 variables which could change in any number of ways and the same rules apply. Yet many claim this should have been figured out by now?... no it's the math stupid. We could randomly experiment with no direction for one million years and never stumble onto the correct sequence of variables required to produce the desired result. The supposed science and prior art have literally nothing to do with it, it's a numbers game.

This is why logic and reason are so important. The odds against us are impossible unless we do the research and find ways to cut down the odds against us.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

void

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #44 on: 2025-06-30, 09:29:01 »

Newbie

Posts: 20

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025-06-28, 21:27:00

Ha! This guy's going all in on Houdini who he calls "Bendini". Gonna be fun to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eSGd93ND4

Here is his explanation of why he thinks a Bedini pulse motor could work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwSQOFkNN9E

Basically he is saying he thinks that very quick HV flyback pulses (sharp gradient events) can draw in energy from the vacuum.
If the pulse switching on the coil(s) uses fast switches, he thinks you have a better chance of capturing that energy which is supposedly drawn in from the vacuum.
He says he is going to use SiC Mosfets and diodes to get faster and cleaner switching.

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #45 on: 2025-06-30, 21:46:38 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Void

Quote

Here is his explanation of why he thinks a Bedini pulse motor could work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwSQOFkNN9E

Basically he is saying he thinks that very quick HV flyback pulses (sharp gradient events) can draw in energy from the vacuum.
If the pulse switching on the coil(s) uses fast switches, he thinks you have a better chance of capturing that energy which is supposedly drawn in from the vacuum.
He says he is going to use SiC Mosfets and diodes to get faster and cleaner switching.

I watched the video and he seems to have no idea what he is doing and using FE keywords like "energy from the vacuum". The translation for these FE keywords is "I have no idea what's going on". That's okay because not knowing but wanting to know is the whole point of doing experiments. When I was a FE virgin I used many of the same keywords, lol. We live and hopefully we learn.

As well he is also not wrong on wanting to get faster and cleaner switching. Figuera, Tesla, Adams and countless other FE inventors mention using open cores specifically in order to produce faster/shorter impulses. This is easily proven by measuring the time period of the magnetic field collapse in an open vs closed core under similar conditions. Here it's really important to follow through. So when an inventor claims they do something for a given reason we should test their claim in the context given. We test all the individual details given by the inventor and then try to apply what we learned from one circuit element conceptually to the whole to learn even more. In this respect it's a learning process.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

void

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #46 on: 2025-07-01, 03:16:33 »

Newbie

Posts: 20

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-06-30, 21:46:38

I watched the video and he seems to have no idea what he is doing and using FE keywords like "energy from the vacuum". The translation for these FE keywords is "I have no idea what's going on". That's okay because not knowing but wanting to know is the whole point of doing experiments. When I was a FE virgin I used many of the same keywords, lol. We live and hopefully we learn.

Well, I know little about quantum physics, but I think they have come to the conclusion that vacuum energy or zero-point energy exists, but I could well be wrong.

The problem, I think, is whether there is a way to tap into that vacuum energy to do useful work or not.
I think our Bedini pulse motor experimenter was trying to show that there is a possible scientific explanation, i.e., tapping into zero-point energy, which could make a 'free energy' device at least a possibility, if someone can figure out how to tap into that source of energy in a practical way. Yes, he said he intends to use air core coils on his large pulse motor build to allow for faster and higher amplitude flyback spikes and higher RPM's as well, I think he said. Whether that will work and be beneficial I don't know. I do recall that in one of the old Kapanadze videos Kapanadze apparently said his device only works if he uses an air core coil. Bedini, on the other hand, seemed to prefer soft iron cores on his pulse motor drive coils, or maybe that was just on his solid state bedini 'monopole' pulser circuit. Not sure.

« Last Edit: 2025-07-01, 04:57:31 by void »

F6FLT

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #47 on: 2025-07-01, 14:49:12 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2497

Quote from: void on 2025-07-01, 03:16:33

Well, I know little about quantum physics, but I think they have come to the conclusion that vacuum energy or zero-point energy exists, but I could well be wrong.
The problem, I think, is whether there is a way to tap into that vacuum energy to do useful work or not.
...

You're right on both counts. In QM, ZPE is accepted. The problem is getting energy out of it, since it is supposed to be the minimum level of this ambient energy. So, a priori, you can't lower the ZPE level to extract the difference.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

chief kolbacict	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #48 on: 2025-07-02, 06:46:21 »
Sr. Member Posts: 419	Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-07-01, 14:49:12 The problem is getting energy out of it, since it is supposed to be the minimum level of this ambient energy. This means we need to drain from the energy of our space to zpt, if there is more of it here. Similar to how we get energy from the difference in temperatures, hot and cold.

Verpies	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #49 on: 2025-07-02, 13:37:34 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4577	Quote from: void on 2025-07-01, 03:16:33 Well, I know little about quantum physics, but I think they have come to the conclusion that vacuum energy or zero-point energy exists, but I could well be wrong. You are correct. They have taken the Lamb shift as evidence of its existence.