Free_Energy
George Wiseman writes,
The question is: "How much energy is needed to compress air from one tank
to another?" I'm specifically looking for an answer in watt-hours. I am
not concerned (at this time) with how fast it takes, just how much work
it takes.
Given the first tank is 1 cubic foot in volume at 100 psig and the second
tank is 10 cubic feet in volume at 100 psig. Two tanks, one a tenth the
volume of the other, both at the same pressure initially and the smaller
tank being pumped into the larger tank.
The first tank's ending pressure can be 10 psig. It went from an initial
100 psig to 10 psig.
The tanks can be assumed to be initially at 70 degrees F and are
insulated to reduce heat exchange with the environment. The air in the
tanks is saturated with water moisture.
***
A hydraulics expert or book is the clear way to get an answer here.
However, you can also use electrical equations by treating the tanks as
capacitors, the psig as voltage and the cu ft as farads. Then the molecules
in the tanks can be treated as coulombs.
All that is needed, then, is to get a conversion factor to watt-hours, which
you can probably translate after quantifying joules.
Perhaps the moisture in the air will offset the calculations... I really
don't know.
If you need some basis for your own formulae, look at the capacitor
equations. They are, to the best of my knowledge, equivalent.
Graham
2
Hi Gurbakhsh,
I'd like to tell you that I have had some success tapping cost-free energy
as well.
I offered to let Eric test one of my inventions some time ago. The model
produced less than a kilowatt of inexhaustible energy and he refused to see
it.
(For the record, I also insisted on media absence, if I made a
demonstration.)
That's in the past. Since then, I've learned that there are other places,
offering more resources and more people willing to correspond with you and
offer useful input.
You may wish to join the email groups jlnlabs@yahoogroups.com and/or
Vortex-L (join at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html). The
moderators of these lists are people who are enthusiasts, not skeptics.
Jean-Louis Naudin, (http://go.to/jlnlabs) the owner of the JLNLabs list
actively does experiments in "free energy" - you might be interesed in
viewing his work.
These are some good places to branch out from, if you would like.
Graham
3
> Last evening I was watching a documentary about the junk we leave in orbit
> around our little planet. It seems that where ever man goes he must
leave
> a mess but thats not subject. They explained how somthing even as small
> as a speck of paint could do much dammage when traveling over 17,000 mph
> like that.
Yes, like break the thick, reinforced windows on the space shuttle, etc.
There's one documented case where a paint fleck about the size of a postage
stamp caused a rupture in the outer hull of a NASA space shuttle that almost
cost the occupants their lives, by breaking the airlock. This little piece
of thin paint ripped a hole in the craft's shell, and almost too far into
the inner body. Space junk is a real threat, with slight odds but
distastrous consequences. Satellites, for example are routinely designed
with more solar cells than they need, since some are expected to be damaged
from small flying debris (in addition to cosmic radiation which eventually
re-dopes the silicon into a non-photovoltaic cell.)
>
> I can understand that but not the following. They said that when you
> double the speed of an object it quadruples it's kinetic energy. At first
> I was willing to accept that, (for a few seconds anyway) but then when I
> got to thinking about it I questioned it.
This is just the same as the equation for wave energy, which states that the
energy in a wave (ie, the overall intensity of a light wave) scales as the
square of the wave's amplitude.
It doesn't seem to make sense, no.
In the electromagnetic case (which is all I feel qualified to describe), the
cause is because we are only looking at one factor. True, the energy in an
EM wave (such as a photon, or a radio wave, etc) is proportional to the
square of its electric field; or conversely, the square of the magnetic
field.
But the magnetic aspect of the wave is directly proportional to the electric
field, since it's an EM wave after all where E and M are always present
together, in proportions equal to the impedance of free space. When we
increase E by one unit, we increase B by one relative unit as well, so BOTH
quantities increase, and when we look at the total energy (as E * M) we see
that it is the square of E, which is really just the product of E and B
which both must increase together.
They taught me the thing about the energy of motion being the square of
velocity back in high school physics; it's for real, unless the texts are
wrong. I did ask why. My instructor was not into giving reasons. Things just
are the way they are, he said.
This makes me think students ought to be able to grade teachers like they
grade students.
In my opinion, he flunked my course. 'Why' is NOT an inappropriate question.
It's the question that started science in the first place. To me, a science
teacher that rejects "why" gets an F.
It's not all bad; that kind of idiocy (no explanation for gravity, for
gyroscopic precession, for damn near anything that seems fundamental) was
one of the major factors influencing me to take a closer look at physical
processes, especially in the EM regime. Electronics texts state effects, not
causes, and it's all a mess.
Here's a quick example.
F=ma. This is the definition of a field, say an electric field. F is the
"field of force", which is DEFINED here as mass (m) times acceleration (a).
Electric fields, for example, are defined in this way. The field is said to
be equal to the acceleration (a) of a charged object with mass (m), say like
an electron.
So, if we have no electrons, or anything with mass, in the field region,
then m = 0. There can't be any acceleration, either, with no object - so a =
0 as well. This leaves F, the electrical field, equal to zero. What this
implies is that there is no electric field if there are no electrons (etc)
present to measure it. But our high voltage generator is still on - there
MUST be a field, right? How can this formula say it is zero?
It's a problem in electrodynamics, since we assume fields in space. Why we
assume this, I don't know since the defining formula refutes the very idea.
Nobel physicist Richard Feynmann pointed out that we can take it literally -
there are no fields in space. There are only the potentials for fields to
exist as soon as there are objects to act on. There is no such thing as a
field in vacuum. There is only the potential for a "field" to form once
something is there to be acted upon.
The difference may seem semantic, but it isn't. Extensions of this idea -
treating "fields" as potentials for fields to exist, gives us extra degrees
of freedom that aren't necessarily obvious. I used this new perception to
create a device that uses an electrical POTENTIAL to create FIELDS at the
right times; in other words the device uses static electricity (potential)
to create electric current (fields). This can be done in such a way that the
electrical current (field) does not deplete the electrical potential (static
charge), so once the potential is infused (charging the device) the output
current does not cease. This is cost free energy. I offered to let Eric
Kreig test this device, in hopes of securing the reward he offers, but he
wasn't interested, since the output fell short of the 1 kW he requires. (The
device is not immenently practical anyway; it could never get UL approval.
Suffice it to say there are other technologies with the same result that are
much safer, and I'm no longer interested in a $10K reward.)
>
> Example = For that to be true would mean that to double it's speed in the
> first place would require quadruple the input energy and to me that don't
> add up. If it takes one horsepower to accelerate an object from zero to
10
> mph, then in my mind, to double that 10 mph should take another one
> horsepower.
Horsepower is the wrong unit to use. Horsepower over time is a better unit,
since horsepower continuously applied would cause continuous acceleration.
Let's redefine this into "horsepower applied for one second".
So we apply 1 HP of acceleration for one second and get a velocity of 1 unit
. Now the object is moving away from us at, say, 1 unit of space per second,
giving us our velocity of 1 "unit" of speed. If we wish to accelerate the
object further, some of our energy will be spent just reaching the present
speed of the object, and then what's left over afterwards actually
accelerates it. That is, the present speed of the object is subtracted from
the total energy we have available for more acceleration, which leaves the
final acceleration. So we are trying to push our object to 2 units of speed,
but in so doing we have to overcome the velocity we've already imparted to
it.
In the end, 2 of our horsepower-seconds are used to actually accelerate the
object, and 2 horsepower seconds are used to reach, and transcend the speed
it's already moving at. This is really a calculus problem, but when you add
it all up you get an acceleration energy that looks like the square of the
end velocity.
This isn't a rigorous definition; the example given here breaks down upon
deceleration, like that paint fleck hitting the hull. I don't really know
the answer, but I know there IS an answer that can be stated clearly in
English. A university library can answer the question, for sure.
>
> How can these people say that doubling the speed quadruples the energy
when
> these same people will tell you that energy can not be created?
They can, because the energy of the motion is energy taken from some other
action, which gets its own energy from some other process, and so on.
Velocity is stored energy, taken from somewhere else. The precise value of
that energy is, of course, relative and unique to you with your own
perspecive and velocity.
Of course energy can't be created. How can you create something that
everything's made of in the first place?
Graham
4
Hi all,
It's been ages since I posted on this list. I was reading a digest and I saw
that a member here has produced some small "free energy" outputs in the
femtowatt range.
This is very easy to do. An ordinary resistor will do it; it's actually an
energy source.
Every resistor has a noise voltage associated with it, due to thermal energy
in that resistor (as well as other sources of noise including the EM
spectrum). The RMS voltage of that accumulated noise, and the RMS current it
sources, are given by the resistance of the resistor. Multiplying the volts
times the current, there is a real power output from every "dissipative"
resistor, in every electronic device, everywhere. Resistors produce free
energy, but the power is in the femtowatt range.
The power levels are so small because what you are observing are the
"leftovers" or the uncancelled remainder of a much larger energy flux that
has been given no direction or coherence. The true source of energy must be
directed and cohered - but a resistor and its Gaussian noise spectrum do not
offer economical avenues for doing so.
In most electronics texts, this "resistor" kind of free energy is regarded
as a nuisance, since in high sensitivity amplifiers, the resistors we use to
balance the circuit start injecting noise into the active elements,
producing a "noise floor" below whose level we cannot discern signals.
Gaussian-noise "free energy" is widely known in to electrical engineers,
though perhaps undervalued as an energy source. The power densities are so
low that it would take a collection of resistors the size of a water tower
to produce enough juice to blink an LED (and that's assuming perfect
rectifiers, which we don't have). Maybe there will be a new invention that
breaks this ratio, I don't know... regardless, there are ways to get closer
to the source of free energy that have far higher volumetric efficiency.
If you are curious to learn more about the noise power of resistors I can
suggest reading Horowitz and Hill, "The Art of Electronics". The book is
available in most decent libraries, and it describes things like this in
language so clear that it is trult difficult to misunderstand or forget.
This book teaches its title. I would suggest having a look, since it
provides a clear background for what's going on here.
Graham
5!
>
> hey guys,
>
> Perpetual motion / vehicle levitation magnets.
>
> Push the together they get hot, then pull them apart an they go cold.
>
> anybody want to buy some samples?
>
> Gary
>
>
Dah, don't play like a fool man. Information is respect.
Mystique had its heyday about 1993.
What are you talking about, please?
Graham
6!
Though I have essentially quit this list (I still subscribe to
digests, so I may eavesdrop), I have to play megaphone for Eric for a
minute more of your time, in case you are maybe the one person
interested in these things?
This is a rather "charged" (yes, a fitting pun) message I just posted
on the JLNLabs gravity/energy research list. Eric found (by accident,
I am assuming?) a good, descriptive example of the missing half of a
whole electric inertia engine. I speak in an attempt to unite these
halves in harmony, within as many minds as possible.
May this harmony spread through science into our understanding, and
the harmony of our understanding into our coming peace on Earth.
***
[upload to jlnlabs@egroups.com]
GRAVITY FOLKS! (YES, YOU!): GET A LOAD OF THIS:
http://www.amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
ABOVE IS THE ADDRESS OF THE OTHER HALF OF THE GRAVITY EQUATION. THIS
CAPACITOR (!!!) WAS REINVENTED IN THE EARLY 1930S BY A 17 YEAR OLD
GENT WHO PATENTED THE DEVICE, CALLING IT AN "ELECTRIC ROCKET".
THE GENTLEMEN AT STANDARD OIL KINDLY BOUGHT THE PATENT RIGHTS FOR ONE
MILLION DOLLARS (IN 1930'S VALUE) AND IT WAS NOT SEEN AGAIN,
APPARENTLY UNTIL THE DAWN OF OUR INTERNET.
I ENCOURAGE THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE SERIOUS about understanding GRAVITY
control to take some good time to read this little site ENTIRELY. YOU
MAY NOT BELIEVE what you see. Also read the comments by those who
claim to have built this thing. YOU CAN MAKE ONE IN YOUR KITCHEN!
...BUT USE IT OUTSIDE.
IT IS MY OPINION that it is the job of people like us to unify the
electrostatic and electromagnetic aspects of gravity (and energy)
control.
Once we successfully unify them we will fly. I admit this is an idea
from childhood, when I saw electricity and magnetism through a
beginner's eyes.
For a moment:
I beg you to briefly picture three dimensions. Imagine a line for
each dimension, three total. Each line crosses the other at a right
angle.
One of these lines represents the electric field, say the right-left
line.
One of these lines represents the magnetic field, say in the toward-
from direction.
The third vertical line is a line of PHYSICAL FORCE. Take apart any
speaker or
any motor, and look at the dimensions of the E and M forces, and of
the PUSH force. Notice that THEY ARE EACH PERPENDICULAR TO ONE
ANOTHER. (As they are in the system-G.)
OK That's enough, I'll stop raising my voice now. But I do hope I am
being heard. Take a peek.
-Graham
http://www.amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
7!
The automatic textwrap on this forum appears to need some help or
something.]
Hi all,
€ '³The times they are a€ '²changin€ '´, and rapidly so. If you
limit
yourself, you may not see it happen.
I have recently become aware of a mailgroup that is in current, and
rather heated discussion of a device just recently born in Brazil
(late January, 2000) called the € '³System-G€ '´. A physicist
developed it.
He predicted an absurd result, after distilling the same theories I
have repeatedly cited, based in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
He predicted that his device, when switched on (to the power of 11
kW, no less) would lose 63% of its weight. After distillation, this
is a pretty high "proof".
Fran De Aquina (inventor of system-G) or course switched it on, and
reduce in weight by 63% it did, in nearly complete agreement with the
startling new math. This fella is in the Physics department of his
university so you can bet your saddle the thing€ '²s been thoroughly
tested for
error.
The so-far accurate formulae interpolate at a certain point on a
graph, to yield zero, down to negative, mass € '¶ (that€ '²s right
-
antigravity) with 100 amps more of input power. ("Current" amperage
is in the 300 amp range at 60 Hz. Through an OPEN CIRCUIT, no less!!)
No, it€ '²s not free energy. But it is part of the energy-time-space
(=gravity) triad, and so opens all the questions with one blow. Lots
of information is being exchanged.
The experimental results of this work are being repeated around the
globe at a rate that oughta alarm anybody who is skeptical of a
universal power. It€ '²s happening fast, and the effect is indeed
for
real, and is mathematically € '³proven€ '´ (though I always
hesitate to
use the
full credit of this word).
At any rate, I saw a few ways to improve the workings of this device,
joined the list and began to post what I saw as improvements. In the
last 12 hours I have been deluged with responses asking where I have
been all this time. The knowledge I have is apparently helping many
people
understand something new, and become able to use it better. This is
encouraging, as it HELPS people € '³break on through€ '´, in full
Jim Morrison style.
My time here has been spent differently, as I do not feel that I have
helped so much as to cloud the discussion of skeptics. For that
reason, I will be primarily resident on this other list. If you are
interested in what I post, check out (or join in!) at
jlnlabs@egroups.com. This is a list of over 300 people, many of whom
are active € '³in the field€ '´ (€ '¥so to speak).
I thank everyone here for caring about the global energy situation,
and I value input from everyone and anyone who has decent manners. If
you€ '²d like to correspond, my email once again is
infinitenergy@..., and you are also free to subscribe to
jlnlabs and watch it all go down. Or help it go down, if you€ '²d
like.
I am increasingly aware that I am a misfit, on what is largely
critic€ '²s list. Common sense directs me elsewhere, where my
knowledge
and perspective may be of use to people. Finally, you get some peace.
I would especially welcome any further comment or question on the
issue of electrostatically altered time flow. Those interested might
do well to take a look at the jlnlabs website and the egroups list in
its name, as the same basic effect is being (AT LAST!) explored. It
is being induced € '³magnetically€ '´ (I use the term loosely, in
this
case) and the effects are being measured in units of weight, instead
of duration. At any rate, the power is being seen and I will be where
I feel like a lens.
Thanks, all of you, for a rockin€ '² good time. And keep your eyes
open.
Best Wishes,
Graham Gunderson
Infinitenergy@...
PS JLNLabs stands for the laboratory operated by Frenchman Jean-Louis
Naudin, an active alternative-science researcher for some years now.
I do mean active, like there must be more than 24 hours to a day
wherever in France he lives. His internet site is candy to the
curious. If you are looking for unsubstantiated claims you may be
disappointed though.
You can find it at - http://go.to/jlnlabs
8!
Eh… Durn, I still can't seem to just quit and go to bed …
I stumbled on an ancient list posting from Feb. 29. In it, Dye Hawley
(I haven't forgotten you) wrote:
>
Eric's $10,000 offer is BOGUS - That is like going back to 1903
&telling the Brothers - when you break the speed of sound, then I
will believe you. How far would flight have gotten with OFFERS like
that.It should be a little more reasonable, like paying travel
expences ¬ trying to offer a third party $1000 to con the inventor
intomakeing a disclosure to ERIC. Has anyone read the offer terms???
>
I would like to add that I contacted Eric before I ever joined this
list (he encouraged me to join) because I needed the then-$5000 he
was offering. I was willing to show him my electrostatic flux
turbine, a device I have mentioned before on this list that was then
producing 100 watts of DC current at 100 volts after being jump
started for 10 seconds to full speed with a 12V small lead-acid cell.
I do wonder what would have happened had things gone that route. My
best friend Intuition doesn't see it well. Don't know why, really.
I was fairly surprised at Eric's response, which was not positive. I
was more than willing to let him inspect and test the device. I only
had two contingencies.
One was that a particular part of the circuit I call a "conversion
diode" be potted in black epoxy, so as to retain a key on the
device's function. Otherwise, it is literally so simple to construct
that any electrical engineer would immediately see the principle.
The conversion diode is a plug-in device and I stated that I was
willing to let him unplug it and test it with a voltmeter, etc. to
verify that the device is a passive component and essentially a
diode. If nothing else the conversion diode is small enough to make
it obvious that no battery (or what have you) inside could hope to
supply 100 watts indefinitely (or even for an hour).
The other contingency was that I retain my full anonymity beyond the
name Graham and that I be allowed to wear a hat, and that I would not
be filmed or ever have more than my hands in any camera footage. I
also requested to remain present for the entire 24 hours of the test.
Eric did NOT respond positively to this, counter to expectations.
This shows me that a demonstration of "free energy" is not Eric's
first priority. To me it sounded like media involvement and wholesale
public demonstration were his real dreams. I hold nothing against
Eric, but it is obvious I'd be selling oranges to an apple buyer.
I am ashamed to admit that the stator plates in this device ruptured
when I got my "what the hell" attitude on and increased the field
potential beyond design limits. I have dissolved the carbon off the
rotor and reciever plates but the field stator is toast. My work in
the last months has centered on a far more efficient, solid-state
process using a particular type of magnet, and I have not gone back
and rebuilt the turbine since I have something even more promising on
my hands. This decision was partly mandated by our group of investors
after I made a small demonstration.
I would reccomend ANYONE with a device that seems to have potential
to contact Zpower, I think they have a .com or something. Reed Huish
is president and CEO and I will let him do the talking from here if
you are interested. There's more than $10000 in it there for your
golden egg and Midas chicken. Simply contact him if you have, and
only if you have, something real. That, at least, is my advice from
around the block.
Dye was apparently responding to someone who wrote:
>
What I have is a PLASMA device, so I suggest only those withknowledge
of same respond - unless you really do what to look stupid. As posted
on my little webpage - Overunity is possible on a greaterthan
artifact level - A SMALL BEGINNING considering NO ONE ELSE ONTHE
PLANET has a device ready to test.
>
As I said above, I was essentially turned down, ready to go with one
free ampere of DC at 100 volts. The thing even recharged its own
start battery. I was using brute force electrostatic charge in a
turbine arrangement to push that amp, and it worked just fine, and
somehow that wasn't good enough since I didn't want the media
involved. Also, Eric's request was for a 1,000 watt machine (with my
device, simply a matter of scale and maximum containable field
potential, or dielectric strength) - who cares. Hey, it all starts
small, the first steam engine could not have pushed a loaded semi.
Not good enough? Just wait. Your "small beginning" is more than some
ever achieve in a lifetime, but I think your view of this planet is
maybe a bit smaller than reality...
Fella, there are people hiding all over the globe who might have more
than you do, and are at least somewhat humble?? At any rate, if you
have a bona fide plasma device, that's awesome. I would suggest:
-Getting ready for a LOT of research, quit your day job and get
funding, it's out there!! Or, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em and get
in touch with other plasma researchers.
-Don't scam/waste investor's money, you are really wasting your own
-Learn about charge clustering and the "electrum validum" identified
(I believe) by Shoulders and his colleagues in the '70s and after. In
the electron charge cluster (a plasma phenomenon) is the energy
source you are learning to harness
-Look up the work of Thomas Moray, 1927 inventor of the so-called
Moray valve. He produced 50 kW with a small device in front of
several journalists, and you can find the articles in ancient
newspaper archives. Fascinating stuff. (Moray freely let everyone
inspect his device, said to be composed of several hand made tubes,
wire coils and capacitors, a "bar of silver and a bar of copper". The
only thing he concealed before inspection was the large "detector"
tube that he said cohered the energy. It wasn't really that big...
but it's all fascinating, as Moray was the pioneer of free energy. He
is to the energy revolution what Tesla is to radio, Einstein to the
stars and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
-Also look up the Canadian work by the Correas (apparently related,
married, whatever) that is being done today. There is an American
patent which describes their process, which is based on the work of
Moray. The Correas are pretty quiet about all of it. Search a patent
database, the patent can probably give you some ideas from folks
who've probably been at it longer than you have.
-Above all, good luck and DONT GIVE UP!!! Everyone's input is golden,
so long as it is cordial and constructive.
-And if you dare, go learn something about the theory behind the
force you are using (I mentioned how to start, above) and join the
debate. Nobody said you have to give away any hard-earned (or just
plain accidental!) secrets.
-Graham
9!
Hey there…
The day came. At long last, I have online access.
Aside from paying bills and staying healthy, I don't make much – I
could, but I choose to funnel the money into my research, since
that's where my heart is.
It'll be good to see, in the weeks coming, the developments here. I
have heard that Blacklight has received some verification lately.
Personally this does not sound like "free energy", and maybe belongs
in the hydrogen-oriented cold fusion bin. Really where it belongs is
in laboratories all over the world, being tested and having the
effects quantified by scientific method.
Although the Blacklight process requires chemical expendables that
may loosely be called "fuel", I (and don't we all) believe ANY new
energy source belongs here, now. I hope that Blacklight can beat me
to the plate and open up the global consciousness, preparing everyone
for the eventual retrofit of our more polluting prime movers.
If this is the case, then I, and those I work with will not have to
anticipate so much upset when a system is introduced that produces
power permanently, with no consumption.
The system I work on currently is solid state and the core produces
about 100 watts to the dollar. Completed units with backup, control,
initialization and regulation circuitry will obviously cost more, but
the news is good… free energy is a bona fide phenomenon, and it's
damn cheap using certain technology. What's funny is that we are
cohering ambient energy, just the same way a laser coheres the
scattered electrons or photons input to it into a beam of
concentrated, synchronized energy.
What we're doing is rebuilding the laser. The scattered photons are
the "virtual photons" of QM and pervade all space. Yes, there are
even parallel mirrors, which you can readily see by looking at the
device's core. They are magnetic mirrors, not optical mirrors,
though, so I don't have to look at my haggard face in them. Nice,
after sleepless three-day stints going crazy on it.
The major challenges right now are controlling the process for
stability and achieving a steady high power output. My work is
presently kicking ass. I spend my whole life on this project and I
reserve the right to be a little bit excited and proud of my work.
But enough ado. Some time ago I posted rough "directions" for
creating a device which can slightly alter the relative flow of time.
I was surprised to check my stale email today and find a couple guys
who are actually interested in replicating the work. To me, a
compliment.
In light of the expressed interest, I am posting a reply I sent to
Erik Johnson that clarifies certain points (hopefully?) and mentions
some additional things I did not consider upon writing the original
text. Since the difference between experimental success and failure
may hang in the balance, I am posting the exchange for everyone here,
in the event that there are more of you interested in going beyond
the known.
The original file was sent Friday, February 18, 2000 at 1:45 AM
though I am not sure what archive file it is in. This list is
archived (for those who aren't aware) so if you look at Feb 18 you
should find the original write up.
Erik Johnson wrote:
Graham,
Thanks for posting the "time machine" instructions. I found what
you wrote to be exceedingly interesting and I plan to test it as soon
as I have time and money simultaneously (I'm a college student). I
wish the list would post more such intriguing "hands on" experiments
that those of us without full inventor's work shops could attempt.
Gracias.
Erik Johnson
[Unable to display image]
I replied (except for getting his name wrong on the original…):
Erik,
Thanks for the email. I just got a computer today and I haven't been
able to check anything for quite a while.
The majority of the responses I received from the free energy list
while I was on it were a collection of flame mail and people saying
"it can't be done", in reference to technology which coheres ambient
energy. The popular name for the technology is "free energy", a
misleading term. Indeed, the energy manifests without a fuel expense,
but it implies a free lunch. Personally I've never eaten one...
That is disappointing because my job is to build "free energy"
devices, and I have done so successfully and I currently spend my
time optimizing this new generator technology, which is basically in
its infancy. I posted information looking for discussion, not
argument.
I'll try to give you some pointers, so you don't end up thinking you
wasted your time.
I guess the first thing I could say is that the effect could indeed
be a false one. The experiment I did was cheaply executed and there
were variables (such as temperature) I could not control that may
have conspired against me into a false result.
However, the theory behind the things I built is a sound extension of
quantum mechanics, and directly implies seemingly impossible results
like these, including the relation between electrical charge and
relative time. I did the experiment to test the theory, and the
results, to my eye, were conclusive.
"The way I see it" has been a successful view for me. In that vision,
I interpret "empty" space as energy. I cannot find good words for
what I see in my mind's eye but I can describe the energy in part by
calling it non-polarized electrical charge.
The way it appears in quantum mechanics is actually that space is (in
part) a collection of elementary positive and negative unit
electrical potentials, or "quanta". There is a magnetic aspect as
well, of course, occuring at ninety degrees to the electrical
potentials. Together these space-energy components are referred to as
"virtual photons", as they have the same vector structure as "real"
photon quanta. All the opposing polarities are in a state of
continual annhilation. The energy annhilating forms new identical
pairs of particles, and the process repeats. This oscillation between
manifestation and duration has been called the highest vibration in
the universe.
Since there are, at equilibrium, equal amounts of elementary + and -
electric (and "north - south" magnetic) charge quanta, whose duration
has ended the moment of existence, the resulting electrical charge
around us is zero. One calculation that has been done on this
(successful) new theory says that, if the charges in the vacuum of
space were completely polarized, the resulting "voltage" would be on
the order of 200 million volts.
The theory seems to imply that high electrostatic charge has the
ability to polarize (and represent the polarization of) space itself.
This additional energy in space is of course (by Einstein)
gravitational energy, and so creates a slight warp in the space.
[It also follows that if one built a capacitor in space and had it
brought down to earth with its plates parallel to the planet's
surface, the capacitor would charge slightly with the slight change
in gravity. (You could also build it on earth and take it into
space.) The same goes for intertia, if you accelerate (or decelerate)
a capacitor on the axis normal to its plates, it will also exhibit a
charging effect proportional to the G-force of the inertia. Remember
that this is in terms relative to the speed of light (the first
example is relative to the surface gravity of a black hole) -- real-
world equipments will cause a charge so slight that it must be
amplified very greatly with a low-noisse amplifier, to be quantified.)
Electric charge means the charge symmetry of space has been skewed,
or I could say charge density just as well. At any point, the obvious
electrical energy present is gravitational like all energy is, and
gravity alters time, length, and the velocity and direction of light.
So I decided to use one of my dead TVs to see what all the ruckus
was. I was lucky to have the guts of the large set.
In most TVs the circuit that generates the CRT's second anode
acceleration voltage of around 28 kV is called a tripler and consists
of three cascading stages made of diodes and capacitors. The circuit
is essentially an electron conveyor belt of a certain length.
I have since found that the HV circuit in my old set was a five-stage
(pentupler?) device, so I probably had more than 40 kV (?) at my
disposal. Direct measurements of high voltage are hard to make and I
made an approximation that may have been faulty.
The reason for the concern is the most important point I wish to make
regarding this. Consider relativity: relativistic effects, such as
time dilation and increase in mass, increase with the SQUARE of
velocity relative to the observer. Below about 30,000 kilometers/sec,
the effects are negligible. At about 280,000 km/sec the effects would
supposedly become a problem for interstellar travel confined to three
spatial dimensions.
ALL the evidence of my successful research points to the "fact" that
space is bent by electromagnetism as the SQUARE of the force's vector
strengths.
Magnets give no indication of this because their maximum remanent
fields are very small in the large scheme of things. Magnetic iron
"saturates" and becomes magnetically invisible at about twice the
strength of the most powerful permanent magnets. Higher fields are
produced by coils of wire. At high fields, the magnetism bends the
conductors creating it and squishes the coil into scrap. And so on.
There is not such a prohibitive materials challenge in the art of
high voltage design. This lets us observe how the electric half of
the electromagnetic force can bend space, because the energy levels
are practicable today.
If I saw results at 40 kV (?) and somebody tried this experiment with
a small 20 kV set, it means they would have 1/4 the spatial asymmetry
effect I was dealing with. They might follow the directions and see
no result, which would be disappointing.
Also, HV triplers (or whatever) are designed to be supplied with
electrons at their +HV output via a CRT. In an unloaded condition
such as my write-up suggests, the voltage increases beyond the
anticipated limits of the TV's design. This can damage the diodes in
the HV circuit and reduce (or entirely eliminate) the output by
increased diode leakage and eventual Zener failure (junction erosion).
I would really strongly suggest to anyone actually wanting to attempt
this trick that they use a Van de Graff generator instead!! I have
personally built solid state circuits that produce a calculated (and
apparent) 250 kV, so it is possible to do so, but the construction is
difficult, you have to wear gloves, the parts are expensive and the
design I use is proprietary to my employer.
A good Van de Graff like you'd find in a physics classroom can easily
put out 200 kV of unloaded charge on a day with low humidity. (If the
metal ball on top could be heavily wrapped with high-quality HV
insulating tape, this would also help.) If the ball on the top could
be opened and the watches placed on a pedestal in the center of the
ball (insulated pedestal or not, no matter), this would already form
the charged Faraday cage I mention necessary for observation of the
effect in the absence of any vector "electric field" inside the ball.
(I do not know if you've taken any physics, it sounds like you have.
If so, you may have learned that you can charge a hollow tube up to a
huge voltage, and measure an electric field from the outside, say by
gluing some hair to the tube, which will stick out when the field is
present.
If you glue some hair to the inside of the tube, it will sit still as
if there is no charge present, no matter how strongly charged things
are. There is only an electric POTENTIAL, which is not regarded as an
"electric field". That's not to say there's nothing there, though! A
closed metal box or sphere is a more complete way to isolate the
potential only, inside its charged volume. When such an enclosure is
grounded, the electrical field inside is guaranteed to be a uniform
zero and the thing is called a Faraday cage, after its inventor.
I mention all this because the presence of an electric field as such
causes physical effects (like electrified hair) and alters the
function of electrical circuits as well. A uniform electrical
potential is not regarded as having physical effects, and that's why
I created one in my experiment with a Faraday cage at elevated
potential instead of ground. In theoretical terms, this ensures no
interior "gradient" [variation with distance] in the net polarization
of the virtual charge quanta. The potential at every point in the
watches is the same, and it's obvious the current won't flow through
the radio if you connect both the power wires to the + terminal, say.
Electrical circuits don't "see" the potential they operate at, so
long as the potential is uniform. Only a difference in potential will
register or cause current flow.
So, if you put any electroscope in a Faraday screen made of mesh you
can see through, and put the whole thing on top of a Van de Graff
generator, nothing will register, no matter how much ability you have
to charge up the cage and its contents.)
At any rate, I hope all this helps you if you decide to go ahead. If
you are looking at doing some thesis work and you can repeat my
positive result, you are not only in line for a Ph.D., but a Nobel
prize as well.
If life is wild enough for things to go that far, when you have your
moment on the podium I wish you'd mention how assinine it is that the
committee that awards Nobels will basically not consider you if you
are someone like me without a formal degree. It's about as easy to
get a Nobel without a doctorate as it is to become President if
you've never been a politician.
I'm back on line, so let me know what you think if you want. Thanks
for your response.
-Graham
(PS In light of the content here with regards to what might give
misleading results, etc I will post this email, and the one I got
from you, on the Free Energy list in hopes that they may be of
interest or importance to someone else. I apologize in advance if
that bugs you.)
***
I hope nobody's getting eyestrain. I'll be outta here soon enough… On
the subject, I could squeeze in a couple more small things. Help, I
can't stop......
First, when you do this experiment you are essentially pumping
electrons out of the test cage (which is positively charged) into the
earth. This means you are also pumping charge density. As you charge
the test cage (or anything) up with respect to earth ground, you are
actually charging the earth up by an equal and opposite amount. The
voltage on the cage equals the coulombs of charge distributed over
the outside surface area; same goes for earth. So as you charge your
box positively with all those kilovolts, you also charge the earth
negatively with perhaps a fraction of a picovolt over the surface
area of our globe.
The effect is well below the resolution of even the best atomic
clocks, but in theory by doing this experiment you alter the clocks
everywhere – the rate of flow of time anywhere. You have not only
siphoned some electric charge into the test cage: you have siphoned a
small amount of time as well. True, but no one will miss it.
Second, if it doesn't seem to work, remember that the effect is
cumalative and time will literally tell. If results don't show, you
are looking to soon for the energy level you are using. Increase the
charge somehow, or wait. Remember to keep the temperature constant as
you can between control and test groups. It will help to build two
identical metal boxes, one at high potential and the other earth
grounded. That eliminates some variables.
Last, I would strongly advise anyone even remotely curious about all
this to look up the works of researcher Townsend Brown on any good
search engine. (I'd personally plug dogpile.com, never tried it with
T. Brown but it does come up with way more stuff on exotic subjects
than I've seen elsewhere :)
The effect that the late Mr Brown was responsible for is named the
Biefield-Brown Effect, after Townsend and his assistant. I wonder if
the man had a nickname.
Remember that gravity not only accelerates mass and bends light, but
alters the relative flow of time as well. Brown and Biefield
constructed large capacitors with plates that were up to several feet
in diameter. These capacitors used massive dielectrics, weighing many
pounds.
The effect is that, when such a capacitor is charged to, say, 50 kV
of potential difference, it "gravitates" [as Brown said] toward its
positive plate and away from the negative plate. The force is related
to the voltage (the relation was never specified, I assume it is a
square law as gravity is) and directly proportional to the mass of
the dielectric and its dielectric constant (a unit called "K").
Since the developed force occurs in any direction including upward,
the real bollocks of this work from the `50s is STILL classified, by
government order. That oughta say something right there.
Brown scared the government by using high electrostatic charges to
alter apparent inertia and weight. I hope those of us who buy cheap
wristwatches in bulk don't get followed by unmarked white vans… then
again, many people in government do not seem to be on the ball enough
to realize the connection. They probably can't even read their own
damn wristwatches.
So, enough. May the information be of use to you.
Maybe not,
Graham
9!
~Hi~
I have been thinking about this list lately, I haven't forgotten
you all (if there are any of the original list members left?)
I am still off the net, so I can't monitor discussions here. One
nice thing about posting things here in the past was that, in
the effort to clearly state a point, I clarified some
of the knowledge for myself in the process. I hope I benefitted
others at least as much as I did myself.
Times have been busy lately, I have been preparing a series of
portable demonstration f/e sources for investor presentation.
The principles behind f/e devices can be beautifully simple (and
perhaps even simply beautiful?) but the logistics of building
these things to be rugged, reliable and safe is sometimes ninety
percent of the challenge. I am mostly a hermit, whose time is
taken.
Going so far in this work has brought me to an important
realization that has profound and direct consequences. I feel
like I'm keeping a huge thing (with huge implications) a secret;
the truth is all around us and I wish it were common knowledge.
No further ado. Let's get a little technical.
We take space for granted like fish in the sea. Fish are perhaps
not aware of the water around them, only pressure in the water
(sound waves, mass movements, etc). To a fish, a wave, and the
water that does the waving, may seem like totally separate
things. To say they are really aspects of the same thing could
seem like nonsense.
We face a similar quandary in perception, though it's far more
subtle and to most people entirely irrelevant. For a free-energy
researcher, it makes the world different.
I will skip the explanation of exactly why it all is, it's the
results that matter first. Anybody want to build a time machine?
Try swallowing this hogwash: Space can be treated as a high
voltage (approximately 200 million volts/meter) that has no
polarity. It is non-polarized, because it is actually an
incoherent oscillation of fundamental charge at the highest
frequency possible in space. (In other words, the wave-length of
this highest frequency is the size of the fine "grains" of
vacuum space, which are far smaller than an atom.) There can be
no smaller particles than these fine quantum "grains" of space;
familiar dimensions break down at this tiny "zero" point and no
smaller wavelengths can be accommodated in 3-D. Therefore no
higher frequencies are allowed. (This upper frequency limit of
space is mathematically transformed into the universal constant
G, the gravitational coupling coeffecient of space.)
One may think of empty space like a dead battery: all the ions
and charges are inside it, all mixed up. A charged battery (bent
space, local time differentials, strong gravity, etc) simply
have a separation of elementary charges, and are thus internally
nonuniform. Things don't all cancel out on the small scale
anymore.
Here we go into theory again. I'll try to make it simple: You
can polarize ordinary "nonpolarized" space, with ordinary HV DC.
Static electricity warps space! It also warps time!
I say this in full realization that I have just shot most of my
credibility. The folks that are most reluctant to believe this
stuff are also the ones to be the most surprised at the results
of the following expirement. You can build a "time machine" with
an old TV set and a couple of cheap wristwatches, and I'll tell
you how.
You can think of space as time (two objects are separated by the
time it takes for light to travel between them; a foot of space
is about a nanosecond wide) - and you can also treat space as
pure static electrical charge. Logic infers that time is
therefore subject to this charge. Really, it's just electrical
potential: the "charge" an object has determines (in part) it's
rate of progress "through time". [And the energy in its charge
(couolombs) divided by the speed of light squared gives the
change in its absolute mass, or weight in gravity.]
Find an old TV set with a working picture tube. Disconnect the
tube's little electron gun connections (but leave the
deflection yoke connected, it's part of the HV supply), and
liberate the red suction cup from the CRT's side. Use all
precautions, be a sissy, don't get hurt. Discharge the big red
second-anode cable before you handle it by slipping a chassis-
grounded wire beneath the cup to make contact, removing any
residual charge. (Remember this when you do the experiment, too.
Ground it before you touch it.)
Now you have a good generator of some +25 KV DC. This isn't much
compared to the 200 megavolts/meter absolute charge flux of
spacetime but it still serves for experiment.
(Note to devoted spacewarpers: The degree to which space is
curved by electrostatic charge is proportional to the square of
the potential [or "voltage"]: doubling the voltage quadruples
the effect. Once electromagnetic energy at a point reaches a
certain value [called the "mass potential"], the energy
condenses into "solid" mass. However, he mass potential is
unattainably huge by today's standards of technology.)
Today's technology: Build a metal box with a door on it. Build
it so it seals well, so there are no "holes" for light (or
electrical charge) to leak through. Insulate the outside of the
box - use your ingenuity for this - plexiglas, oil baths, big
styrofoam coolers or massive amounts of electrical tape can be
your answer. Don't come cryin to me if you spark yourself.
Overdo it.
Remove the 2nd anode suction cap and solder the HV wire to the
metal box. I can't overstate this thing about the insulation! Do
it up! Outside the metal box will be a potential gradient of 25
KV (or more) once the thing is charged, so take care. Inside the
box will be no gradient - no hill of potential difference
between points - just a uniform +25 KV potential. If you could
walk inside the box when it is charged, you would notice no
effect, no raised hair. (Same as a wire; electric fields are
purely a surface-out effect. There's no "field" on the inside,
when a "field" means a force that can attract or repel an
object. Only the potential for a field is on the inside. It's
not a "field", in the sense that it can exert force on particles
like electrons, because there are no high/low "pressure" zones.
So, your coiffure is left untouched - though it's (and your)
absolute potential is up +25 KV.)
Obtain many cheap digital watches, proferably of all the same
make and production run. Try a dollar store where you may find
them for a $ apiece and buy as many as you like. Despite their
admittedly terrible quality (who wears these things?), such
watches generally keep good time.
Set all the watches to precisely the same time, or as near as
you can get it. Place half inside the box, preferably on a
pedestal (insulated or not, no matter), and leave the other half
of the watches outside it well away in another room. Double
check everything, and fire up the TV guts someplace away from
any action.
Come back in a few days - the later the better - kill the
set, and measure the times between the box watches and the
"normal" ones. All the box watches will read approximately the
same time; all the untreated ones will as well... but the times
will read differently, guaranteed. If they don't, either your
set has a weak HV supply or you need to let it go on longer.
Average values between sets of watches will be consistently
different, as the experiment is replicated.
Some people raise question as to the electronic susceptibility
of digital watches to HVDC charge. While their timing is
controlled by quartz crystals, it is true that ANY "clock" will
be affected by a change in ambient potential. This goes for
pendulum clocks as well as atomic clocks; anything that counts
local time will respond to a change in its absolute charge with
a change in time kept. This rule does not apply just to clocks
but to chemical reactions, atomic oscillations, radioactive
substances, and human aging. And so on, to the energy domain.
Time and space are "not supposed to be" tangible, yet they are,
and I'm telling you one way to set the very stage for reality...
albeit in a small, and elementary way. It is difficult to get
used to treating time, space and electrostatic potential as
synonyms. Once you do, the doors to boudless energy (and other
rabbits from the same hat) are opened to you.
[* The "conservation of energy" - the no free lunch -
mathematically requires two things: 1) a closed system and 2) a
constant flow of time in the forward direction. Here, we are
upsetting requirement #2, we are bending the local rules because
we have bent local "time". When you perform this process on an
atom or an ion (which are open systems), requirement #1 also
fails. Enjoy lunch.]
It is easy to sit around and poo-bah anybody who proposes
anything you do not agree with. This will take care of maybe 8
of any ten people who read this: many will say, bullshit. Or, I
don't care. Do you?
One of ten may realize the point and its implications, he or she
may have an open enough mind to entertain something new for more
than an instant of consideration. I've been in this place
before: thinking things and doing no thing about them.
And this leaves you, perhaps the remaining one of ten (using
comically optimistic odds) who would actually be willing to get
up and attempt something new, pushing the boundaries of the
known. Whatever. All I am saying is that you don't HAVE to sit
around being a pundit of somebody else's dated knowledge, bah
this, bah that: you can begin proving yourself (and everybody
else) "wrong" with some motivation and some ole junk. Talk has
brought you...? Build something, maybe a "time machine"...
unless you think these things are impossible, in which case you
have glued your butt to the sofa.
If you take this idea beyond the wristwatch-in-a-box stage you
get a cheap source of free energy. Just find a way to let
static electricity (free, like a magnet's field) push an electrical
current. One can use this rift (the differential) in time to
make it happen. I am not here to tell you how, because you are
not an investor in my employer's firm. I am not here to make
demonstrations, that is separate from my purpose in writing. I
cannot yet share the harvest I have sown, but I am sharing the
seeds. Plant yours, if you wish, and may understanding grow
within you.
*** You may notice I have not said whether time "speeds up" or
"slows down" with this "junk TV" arrangement! Which way would it
go? That is for you, the reader, to learn for yourself! ***
Keep on truckin' -
Graham
10!
Hi-
I was going to post three separate articles on free_energy last night but
thought I'd wait until today... Well, those files are all gone now, which I
find very disappointing... I lost a lot of data. I had been looking forward to
sharing this information on a public forum. Funny that we still store our
computer data by mechanical means, and that the inevitable failure rate (and
massive data loss) is just an accepted hazard.
I had planned to post so much information because I will be moving soon, as
well as out of the country for a while and I will probably not be around for
about a month. This is it for now. Now you guys can flame me all you want. :)
Anyway, most of what I wrote can be found in the existing literature, I was
attempting to explain the connection between relativity theory and ambient
energy (which, in popular texts, is referred to as "zero-point energy" or "the
virtual particle flux of the vacuum".)
Also, I touched on the issue of Johnson's motor and SmCo magnets Briefly:
For two magnets,
*Normally N on N or S on S (repulsive) will weaken respective poles of both
magnets.
*Normally N on S (attractive) will strengthen both poles of the magnets.
*Normally these opposite actions are in energy symmetry and thus cancel.
The degree of strength change under these external field influences is
particular to the type of material the magnet's composed of. I'll have more
time to explain when I return, but essentially the gist of it is that the
energy symmetry of the pole strength fluctuations is broken by:
*Choice of high energy, nonlinear materials
*Geometric form of same, in relation to the aspect ratio of electromagnetic
fields
*Field interactions including field components perpendicular to magnetic axis
of magnets (which give bizarre results, and have never been formally
investigated)
*Constant operating frequency (or RPM), establishing nuclear orbital resonance
in stressed nuclei of magnetic material
in certain combinations of the above, certain magnets exhibit energy asymmetry.
There are many other considerations and details in addition to these main
principles but my computer ate them. Perhaps I will feel like re-writing
everything when I return.
To Mike Carpenter, I'd highly recommend finding a book with a title something
like "Fundamentals of Relativity" and reading it thoroughly. I would also like
to suggest a little reading into quantum physics over the holidays... yeah
right... but I also understand that the concepts of QM are fully understood
only by an unpretentious mind - and some minds don't seem open enough yet. They
say, when the student is ready, the teacher appears.
I wish everyone here the top of the holiday season, and I hope none of your
hard drives crash. I think I'm having a bad day... scrooge... I'll be back next
millenium when the hangover wears off... :)
-Grrraham
11!
Mr Carpenter,
I think you have interesting things to say. I value your input here. However,
some of what you claim (whether relative to your experience or not) is
incorrect. I would like to have an opportunity to mention a few of the same
corrections that an elementary physics teacher would. I hope you don't get
tired... I'll indicate what you wrote starting with a >> sign.
>>Graham, I think I once tried to say that I believed that time is not an
entity but only a number that we invented.
Yes. Our SCALE of time is an arbitrary one, our quantities of seconds and
years. The FLOW of time is NOT arbitrary, it is precisely measurable by the
frequencies of atomic nuclear resonance. This gives us clocks that only lose
one arbitrary second in a billion arbitrary years. We can THINK of time any way
we want, but that doesn't stop the future from becoming the past. The "rate" at
which the future becomes the past is electronically adjustable, with the right
equipment. [It is also adjustable by relative velocity, and gravity. Travel
fast or go where the local gravity is immense, and time will slow down for you.
You won't notice - except the rest of the universe will appear to speed up.]
Essentially, the [energy] density of space is a variable. Things that
oscillate - like atomic nuclei, or crystals - will have a period of oscillation
that is relative to the ambient energy density. When we count such oscillations
to measure "time", the effect is that "time" will appear to locally change its
rate of progress, wherever we have altered the space.
The number we invent, as well as the reality which that number represents, both
change together.
>>Space, which we discribe the size and shape of using distance in 3 arbitrary
dimensions x y and z when you say it is bent, you can really only say you bent
the numbers. The actual space didnt change.
If only the numbers were bent, you would not cling to the earth. The earth
would not orbit the sun. The sun would not shine.
In the case of a black hole, space is so bent that light curves back on itself.
Are you saying this effect is purely a numbers game?
Near the sun, stars appear in the wrong positions. This is the sun's gravity,
curving space. Starlight curves along with the space, and the stars appear to
have moved.
Indeed, this very effect is what "proved" Einstein's theory of relativity,
during a lunar eclipse early in the century. That is, it confirmed his theory
of the interrelationships between mass, energy and space. In your writings, you
appear shamelessly ignorant of this fundamental work. I know you
have heard of it, but you have not yet demonstrated any grasp of the
implications.
The X, Y and Z "vectors" are indeed as arbitrary as the shapes of the letters
we use to identify them. What is NOT arbitrary is the invariable manifestation
of magnetic, electric and spatiotemporal vectors, each at RIGHT ANGLES to each
other. This forms a three-dimensional cross of energies that has an identical
appearance to our "ambiguous" coordinate system. While the labels X, Y and Z
are accepted as contrivances, they do match demonstratable reality. Therein
lies their use.
>>The z you refer to is makebelieve. This 3rd field you speak of seems like it
doesnt exist because it doesnt. What you really have is the fact that if you
move both the magnets and the conductors, its the same as moving one of them
twice as much. That is as long as you do it in the complimentary direction.
Otherwise, you are just making a less efficient system. No z axis field is
created.
I would like you to tell us what book you read this in, so it can be exposed as
a fallacious text. Poynting vectors were first given real attention in 1956 by
David Bohm, Ph.D. These energy vectors occur at right angles to electromagnetic
fields, and can easily be demonstrated to penetrate all types of shielding.
Experiments were repeated with conclusive results, now termed the "Aharonov-
Bohm Effect", which bears first witness to this third-axis field and some of
its amazing abilities. The A/B effect is also strongly implicated in
the "field" of superconductors, as well as in solid-state lasers. It accounts
for much of the "unexplainable" phenomena that are not acceptable under the
shadow of classical understanding.
You are talking about moving magnets and conductors here - those are physical
objects, Mike. I am talking about fields, or energy gradients in free space. If
you confine yourself to "magnets and wires", you are sure to end up on Eric's
list of bad, bad people. And you don't want that.
Please study the physics more carefully before you publicly refute the
existence of forces you don't seem to understand. Such forces have been
accepted as part of physical reality for half a century now. They are common
knowledge. You would do well not to deny that before you know what you're up
against.
>>I'm sure no one will agree with me, but in the physics I took, energy is just
as much a pure number as work is. You speak of energy as if it were an entity,
the same way you speak of time. You agree that work is a pure number, and in
fact call upon the fact to redeam your argument. Yet, you speak of time and
energy as being something other than pure numbers.
ALL our measurements are "pure numbers". We may add labels and scales for
definition. The ONE non-arbitrary (deterministic, absolute) scale for any
measurement is the quantum scale, by which all physical units are tallied. All
the larger scales (ergs, ounces, minutes, yellowness) are subjective, as human
creations.
Energy, time, and space EXIST. And yes, things that exist I will treat as
entities. Entities need not be limited to physical objects. An "entity" is
merely something that IS.
Time and energy are observable manifestations of gross reality. "Work" is an
earth-bound term that involves energy transfer devices we have contrived, and
so on. Work is a product of other sums, so it is not a fundamental quantity.
Therefore, I treat it differently.
>>Once you see that every other concept is simply some property of moving mass,
you see that there are only a bunch of moving particals and only that. Only the
particals remain.
Ahh... but "what are the particles made of"? Are you familiar with the physical
fact that all particles can be interpreted as waves, and all waves can be
interpreted as particles? That to be one is to be both?
Mass is a PRODUCT of energy in space. Mass is SOLID ENERGY. If the be-all and
end-all of your universe is "particals", you are missing a larger truth.
Again, consider that I might not be wrong: I am simply repeating 50 years of
accepted science. Your unique perspective looks very limited, in comparison.
>>Btw, a long time ago it was admitted that a photon is a non-entity. Photon a
number, a very precise number, but never the less, just a number. A measurement
for reference.
Well done. You're exactly right: no one - not ONE person - has ever SEEN
a "photon". All we have ever detected (from the finest photoscintillators to
our own retinas) are ATOMS transforming ENERGY. Photons, per se, are our way of
conceptualizing a "thing" to carry out the necessary interaction. Nature didn't
invent photons. Physicists did.
If you could put a clock on a photon, the clock would not tick. Einstein proved
it: the faster you go towards the speed of light, the slower time goes for you.
At the speed of light - therefore, for light itself - time doesn't move. Time
stands still.
To live, you have to live DURING sometime. Otherwise, you never existed.
Since "photons" don't last for any duration whatsoever in their own frame of
reference, they have no material existence in and of themselves. They are not
real, at all. They are purely illusions, caused by a relativistic difference in
velocity. Photons are really instantaneous exchanges of energy quanta between
atoms. The "time" it takes for a "photon" to "travel" is a product of the
distance between the interacting atoms. The "delay" we observe is a property of
space, not a property of light.
Funny that Albert Einstein proved this almost a century ago and we are only now
understanding the implications.
>>Also, I dont consider these photons spontaneously erupting from the phosphor
screen in front of me. There are a whole lot of electrons being flung at that
phosphor to do that. Its not spontaneous.
Consider what you will. Consideration has no bearing on your accuracy.
Spontaneous emission is the quantum decay mode of all phosphors. The phosphors
in your monitor are "waiting" about a nanosecond (after decelerating an
incoming electron) to release the absorbed energy as visible radiation.
The "waiting period" appears to fluctuate at random for every phosphor
molecule, giving rise to the term, "spontaneous emission". Flourescent lights,
TV screens, the little flashing 12:00 on your VCR... all spontaneously emitted
light. Some mysterious thing inside the atoms of a phosphor "decides" exactly
when to fling out the light-quanta at another atom.
The actual trigger for this spontaneous emission (as well as the "spontaneous"
decay of radioactive atoms) is NOT really random. Spontaneous action is
triggerable, by electronically adjusting the charge structure of space. Perhaps
elaboration here is unneccessary. The mechanism is the same force I've been
talking about all along.
Mr Carpenter, I wish to discuss the implications of fact. By and large, you are
not stating facts. Your opinions clash with a huge stack of successful ideas.
Why? You have not beaten 'em, and you don't appear to be joining 'em.
>>Graham, up until this point I had hoped you offered something more than the
other o/u and f/e theorists. I am now convinced you have joined the Newman and
Lee side of the fence. I can say this without embarasment because I have
nothing to lose.
You stand to lose the respect of others on this list for premature and
stereotypical judgment. You stand to lose every form of enlightenment that an
open, unprejudiced mind can enjoy. Life is free; lose what you will.
I'm not asking anyone for any money. I am providing real, true information that
is supported by repeatable experiment and successful quantum theory. I am paid
by people who know firsthand that what I stand for is entirely real. I didn't
ask them, they hired me.
Newman, Lee and others have been asking anyone who will listen to them for
large "investments" while AVOIDING disclosure of any useful information. Do I
appear the same as this to you?
-Graham
12!
Originally I sent this email as a private reply to Mr Dubner. I see that his
email to me was posted on this forum, so I repeat my reply here for anyone who
is curious. ***
Hi Mr Dubner,
I thank you for your reply! Some of the most insightful email I get in response
to what I write is from "critics" who aren't just wasting their time flaming
me. Your intelligent response is warmly appreciated.
I think it warrants a reply, on a few issues. I hope you are interested.
>>...But just because it's true that weight and mass often get confused as being
the same thing doesn't mean that every pair of things that seem the same
actually are different.
No, obviously not... but subtle distinctions are distinctions all the same, eh?
>>You lost me with the concept of "scattered energy". Maybe you are sequeing
into entropy. Build a bomb, and blow it up -- that's certainly an example of
scattering energy; it's not possible to put that particular Humpty Dumpty
together again after he falls off that wall. But if I lift a 16-ton weight ten
feet off the floor, I can get back every single erg of energy in that
particular investment by dropping it back onto the floor.
Yes, in your gravity example, you do get all the energy back.
But, the electric motor (for example) that you used to lift the weight with
your winch got pretty hot - that's scattered energy, the motor did some work.
While you do indeed get 100% of your mechanical energy back, you don't get 100%
of the TOTAL energy you spent in the process. In most real systems, some
portion of the energy in circulation (doing whatever task) gets distracted from
the task at hand and becomes (usually) heat, or something more obscure
(vibration, radiation, leakage flux, etc.) I am sure you are familiar with this.
Keep in mind that, when you lift your weight, you are doing work... but when
you drop it, the WEIGHT is doing the work on any resistance to it falling.
(Actually, the curvature of space is "doing the work". But that's another
story.) At any rate, the work you do is returned to you. Stated mathematically,
first you do work (positive energy input), then the work is done on you
(negative energy input). Technically, these negative and positive values cancel
and there is no real work translating in the weight over a complete cycle. You
are not scattering energy in the weight because you are not doing "work", in
the absolute sense. You are only storing and releasing energy.
So far as has been observed in the physical world, work always involves
this "scattering of energy". This is because work involves transformation of
energy (like our motor, converting current to motion). Almost no transformation
process we know of is 100% efficient, so the byproduct energies, whatever they
are, give us this telltale "scattering of energy", and thus our definition of
work.
>>I am not competent, by several years of study, to understand Poynting vectors
and the seemingly infinite energy densities apparently to be found in free
space.
You have been competent so far, far enough to make me think that 'not familiar'
is a better term to use in regard to your acquaintance with new fields. This
stuff is not magic. It is about as easy to understand as electricity, if not
easier.
Also, "found in free space" is, technically, the wrong way to put it. Ambient
energy IS space, not a property of it.
>>I seem to recall that Feynman and a couple of other physicists received a
Nobel prize for their work on the "normalization" of that energy -- they
somehow cooked up a mathematics that made the infinities manageable, which in
turn led to the development of quantum electrodynamics, which I *think* is what
you are referring to in the bulk of your note.
The Nobel was strictly for the useful QED, not for juggling infinities. Feynman
(among a majority of others) was never happy with "renormalization", or the
cancelling of infinities. First, nobody is even sure if infinities do in fact
cancel. How could one ever tell, in a finite world? The foundation for the
whole shebang was an unfounded, and unprovable, assumption.
The major dissatisfaction with the renormalization process is that it stripped
the mathematical processes from any foundation in reality. This made it a
proven fantasy, not a good starting point for any PHYSICAL math. Theory is
supposed to follow from observation, remember?
In recent decades, the math has been revamped and now exists free of cumbersome
infinities. The energy density of "the vacuum" is now calculated very simply,
using well-known physical constants as starting points.
Here's the brunt of it. Are you aware of the Casimir effect?
Take two sheets of metal, separate them slightly (less than 1mm) and keep them
parallel. They are not magnetic, not electrically charged. But they do attract!
And the attraction is proportional to the inverse FOURTH POWER of the
separation.... in other words, it gets REALLY strong with VERY short
separations.
Why does this force take effect? Because of the energy density of space. This
is the rigorous definition. You can think of empty space as containing all
wavelengths of all frequencies. Between the metal plates, wavelengths longer
than the separation between the plates are excluded by the conductive metal.
So, there are more "waves" on the outside of the metal sheets than there are
between them. The waves have an energy density; therefore, they can
slightly "push" against objects, just as light does. Normally, this push is not
felt, just like you can't feel the 14 PSI of ambient air pressure against your
skin. You CAN feel the "push" of these vacuum waves in one direction,
however... they account for your weight. They also push you back when you
accelerate in your car, and may damage your body by sustaining your motion if
your vehicle hits something. ANY physical motion we observe originally
manifests itself as a "phase delta", or a shift in the harmonic structure, of
the vacuum waves surrounding the moving object. Again, this is from quantum
electrodynamics theory. This information has obvious implications for "gravity
control" and the like - physical motion is proven to be a function of phase and
wavelength. NASA is currently persuing this, in a special research group. It is
being taken very seriously, all of a sudden.
I said, "You can think of empty space as containing all wavelengths of all
frequencies". To a point, this is. If the upper frequency limit were truly
infinite, gravity would be infinitely strong, everywhere. No big bang. The fact
that gravity is finite, and has a coupling constant (mathematically
labeled "g"), implies an upper frequency limit for ambient spatial energy.
Since higher frequency implies higher energy, this frequency cutoff then
implies a huge but finite energy density for space. And so it has been
calculated from the gravitational constant, to the order I stated. It's quantum
physics 101 type material. I find it so incredibly ironic that the same fellas
who recognize the presence of this really boundless energy would be astounded -
disbelieving, literally - to see it used as an energy source. To me, this is
folly. Did the first men to tap oil fail to notice it would burn? Did they just
say, "it doesn't look like wood," and condemn its use as an energy source?
>>If it is somehow possible to tap into those near-infinite energy densities,
then we will all be very happy people indeed. That's assuming somebody doesn't
accidently blow the entire universe into quarks by playing with it -- 10^100
grams / cm^3 represents about 10^114 joules per cubic centimeter -- and unless
I miss my guess, that's many orders of magnitude greater than the energy
density present early in the Big Bang when the universe was one centimeter
across.
I don't know. I would expect the maximum energy that space can accomodate, the
speed of light, and the initial energy density of the universe to be
intrinsically related, as a trio.
Vacuum energy already lights up our sun and all the stars. When two hydrogen
nuclei fuse, their protons don't give off any energy. They retain all their
inherent charge, mass and energy (all one thing). The energy (or extra mass)
that radiates out as starlight originates from the SPACE surrounding the
nuclei. The nuclei fuse, so the potential energy of the protons (you can think
of it like constant voltage X changing surface area) drops. The energy
difference is released from the space that stored it, and so disturbs local
charge gradients. Nearby plasma electrons are shaken by this change. We see the
white light of their disorderly motion.
All the light, matter, and motion we can see in this universe is a direct
product of space's "internal" energy, manifesting through atoms. Wouldn't it
make sense that the spatial energy, as the cause of all this, would be somewhat
inconceivable in its magnitude?
>>Tapping into even an inconceivably tiny fraction of that much energy would
blow the earth into plasma.
Indeed. So it's good that even powerful entities like radioactive atoms only
tap in to some 10^-100 % or so of the horde. Space's canonical energy FORMS and
SUSTAINS atoms as we know them, it is their parent source. So there's no way
we're going to release all the parent's energy with the strength of its child,
the atom. Only a fraction is available to us, but it's a powerful fraction at
that, even at 10^-100 %! (Exhibit A: The Bomb.)
I mean these exponents I mention to be illustrations of magnitude. I don't
recall the exact quantities, as calculated. I could look them up. Ballpark
figures have worked fine for the purposes of illustration.
>>...A pretty problem. It seems so bizarre that one suspects it almost has to be
wrong, somehow. It's confusing that quantum electrodynamics seems to work so
well, but at the same time predicts these ridiculous energies.
Terms like "ridiculous" and "nonsense" are subjective, aren't they? If you get
used to something - if it starts to make sense to you - does it still feel so
totally ridiculous?
I heard something really absurd once. Take one foot of 12-gauge Romex house
wire. There's some copper in there. Zoom in, and there's supposedly a lot of
electrons and protons and neutrons and other "things" that nobody's ever seen.
There exists a huge energy flux between the negative electrons and the positive
protons in this piece of wire. All the electrons are already moving as current,
though randomly.
I was blown away by the proof of this - if one were to cohere all of this
wandering charge flux into a steady, directional current, the value of the
current across the resistance of the wire (if you could keep it from melting,
of course) would EXCEED the electrical power consumed by the entire globe.
Stated this way, there is more "electricity" in a foot of regular Romex cable -
ordinary construction site litter - than the whole world could use. The
necessary flux and motion is already in there, but there is no order (energy)
to make all the little pieces act in unison, and be "useful".
The key to liberating large amounts of energy lies in the substance or medium
which COHERES the ambient energy. Coherence is what lets lasers cut with pure
light. Coherence gives power to the insubstantial. The energy limit for
practical devices is determined by what extent the cohering atoms can maintain
their harmony under the stress of a load.
>>Oh, well. As I said, I am not competent to understand the stuff you're talking
about.
If you say so, I will believe you.
If you are smart enough to understand that you don't understand, you're already
halfway to understanding...
>>I remain serene in my conviction that even if a motor that exploits quantum
mechanics to generate essentially infinite energy can be built, its macroscopic
effects on ordinary household objects like 16-ton weights will still obey the
comfortable rules of limited subsets of physics. I eagerly await the
introduction of practical devices.
Indeed, a motor is a motor. You still need lots of gears and a hefty mount,
what to get that 16 tons of steel off the sofa. You just don't have to "plug it
in". Perhaps, generations from now, children will take for granted that things
seem to run themselves, and read in their history books about their ancestors,
tethered to walls with lengths of black zipcord. It is my belief that our
incomplete understanding of the nature, and source, of all energy has been the
most invisibly powerful leash we have ever made for ourselves.
Thanks for reading. I hope I could clarify a few things for you - and if not,
at least leave you with some food for thought.
-Graham
13!
Some clarifications, perhaps:
Often, in a freshman physics class, the concepts of mass and weight are easily
confused. Really, they are two very different concepts, as I am sure we are
aware.
Similarly, the ideas "energy" and "work" often get blurred past easy
distincion. Yes, "work" is roughly defined as force, spent over distance. Work
is the numerical product of two physical measurements. It represents scattered
energy.
Energy is the ABILITY to do work. Energy is not work itself. Energy is NOT
defined as its own scattering or dis-ordering.
In the static, non-moving case of a magnet pushing or pulling against
something - gravity, whatever - there is obviously a systemic energy being
exhibited, but no work being done. Rigorously, then, this IS "free energy"!
It's just "free energy" we can't use, since any motion, or work, will alter
(and probably deplete) the system's energy.
The very term, "free energy" - as something we don't have and must find - is a
misnomer. Energy, per se, has always been "free". Examine a battery that has
sat upon the shelf for years: Its steady voltage (its ability to do work) is
its ENERGY, which has been patiently manifesting for a decade... absolutely for
free. We can have all the "voltage" we want, forever, from a battery. Any WORK
we ask the battery to do (any current we push through a circuit with its
voltage) is NOT free, the battery soon runs dead and we have to pay for a new
one. In this system, the WORK CANCELS OUT THE ENERGY, and we end up with a dead
battery.
Can you see what I'm getting at? ENERGY is always freely furnished, by the
interaction of atoms with space. We have defined "work" as the scattering of
that original energy (as gasoline is "scattered" into heat, exhaust,
electricity and motion in a car, for example). This definition was based on
experience. Since our concept of "work" has always involved dis-ordering the
original energy, of course energy "will never be free". Our idea of "work"
kills the energy which makes that work possible.
Free energy is already everywhere, by definition. What we really are looking
for, is "free work". This means we have to use energy in a different fashion,
where doing work won't cancel the energy out.
I know that some members of this list may be so trained to believe in limits
that nothing I say here will enlighten them otherwise. What I say below, then,
may be ignored or misunderstood. I suppose this is just as well. You create
your own reality.
Free work is as real as free energy. Those who say, "it can't be done" have
obviously never done it, and probably never will. Let me see if I can explain
some missing concepts.
1) A lot of "free work" devices involve moving magnetic or electric charge.
What's that all about? Well, let's keep it simple. Whenever you move magnetism,
you get an electric field at right angles to the magnetism. Whenever you move
electricity, you get a magnetic field at right angles to the electricity. Easy
enough. The secret of free work is revealed when you move BOTH electricity AND
magnetism against each other, causing a sort of field "friction".
The product of this combined motion appears at right angles (the z axis) to the
right-angled, moving intersection of the magnetism and electricity (x and y
axis). This third product is not electric or magnetic, so we don't usually
sense it with our electric and magnetic measuring devices. (Usually, this means
we assume it dosn't exist.) It takes the form of a field that cannot be
shielded by any known means, which obeys all the same mathematical laws as
gravity. Its behavior is very similar to that of gently curved space.
This third-dimensional developed force has been called the Poynting, or S-
vector, "radiant energy", the motional E-field, ether torsion, scalar waves,
gravity, or time. It is a rose of many names, so to speak. Each name, each
concept implies an energy-caused stress on the substrate of our reality.
Ordinarily, free work is impossible given the laws of orthodox physics. One can
induce small changes in the structure of space and time, however, with proper
knowledge and specially designed equipment. When this is done, the very
space/time system to which we apply all our "laws" is changed, or altered. When
you make a slight bend in space, you also slightly bend the rules that space
exhibits. Energy coupling ratios can be something other than 1:1. Free work
becomes real and observed.
Bending space is not so Star-Trek as it sounds. In fact, it's really easy, once
you understand what it is you're doing. Our planet bends space just by
existing. Electromagnetic methods are not too much more complex, although they
often make no sense at first!
I am not attempting to change anyone's mind. If you are personally comfortable
with more limited subsets of physics, fine. Your space and your time will be as
rigid as your way of thinking. Rigidity means no freedom of motion, no motion
means no freedom for work. I needed a flexible spacetime, as well as a flexible
mind, to achieve my success. The flexibility of each can accomplish a lot of
work.
2) It was earlier stated on this list that magnetism can, of itself, produce no
excess energy. So far as proven, this is entirely correct. The same follows for
the other two members of the energy triad, electricity and spacetime (velocity
X gravity). No force alone can exhibit free work. Each is capable only of
storing energy.
However, certain permanent magnet substances (as in the Johnson motor) will
sometimes begin to exhibit free work. For those that do not accept Johnson's
claims, I encourage you to do some research or contact me further. Howard
Johnson had many patents and a Ph.D. His research was carefully conducted, and
I have seen the experimental data. These data agree with the magnetic
properties of samarium cobalt magnets, and also conclusively demonstrate free
work. Again, if you're curious to know the truth, let me know. The real secret
is in the particular nature of samarium cobalt magnets.
But how can this be, that such a thing could happen? In Johnson's patent it is
perhaps best stated: because of an incomplete understanding of the atomic
motions within magnets. Here, we encounter another subtle distincion like the
one between mass and weight: a magnet, and its magnetism, are two separate
things.
No magnetic field will ever exhibit anomalous energy or free work, alone.
Inherently, field magnetism is a perfect and precise energy balance, a circular
exchange. A magnet, however, is a solid-state conglomerate of atoms, each of
which consist of electric and magnetic charges. These charges are NOT
necessarily in balance, and they do not necessarily cancel out.
Remember that, when one moves magnetism "against" electricity - like striking a
match - a third force is created which bends our rule saying, "work costs
energy". Then, work can be performed without SCATTERING the energy, but simply
BORROWING, or recycling, it. Now, the atoms in our permanent magnet material
consist of magnetic and electric charges. Each charge moves as the magnet's
field is altered - by moving past other magnets, for example. If the motions of
the magnetism and electricity are aligned properly, again we observe free
work, "coming from the magnets". Really, the free work is "coming from" the
place that has always sourced it: bent space. The energy-containing space is
just curved (or bent) on the subatomic scale, by the subatomic forces existing
within the magnet. As the space is bent, so is the energy balance of the system.
This atomically manifested energy, being peculiar to the type of magnetic
material being used, is the "something still unexplained" about magnets. It has
nothing to do with the field of the magnet, and everything to do with how an
individual magnet atomically generates its field in space and in time. The
atoms in a magnet don't behave much like "ordinary" atoms. All sorts of
unexpected energy interactions will occur. This isn't a "bad" thing we need to
theorize away! It's a new frontier for experimental science. My current
employment is in the exploitation of these properties, as testament to the fact
they exist as a practical energy source.
Free energy is all around us, because all energy is free anyways until we kill
it. When you modify the home of energy - which is space - the rules that govern
each are changed as well. Bent space is a hall of twisted mirrors where
nothing, not even physical work, appears as it "really" is, since the framework
for "reality" has been somewhat altered inside the machine. The symmetry
between action and reaction is, again, not necessarily 1:1.
Again, this stuff isn't Star Trek pipe dreaming. One can readily construct
devices which can slightly alter time and space from parts in any good
electronics junkyard. The circuitry is highly unconventional, devices look like
they "wouldn't do anything" or are "shorted out". Such protests tend to fade
when the action of the machinery is observed. Objects move without being
pushed. Clocks (those with internal time references) run fast, or run slow, all
in a very predictable and engineerable fashion.
[As a practical aside, the effects are not strong, but they are repeatable. The
energy density of vacuum space has been calculated at over 10^100 grams/cm3 -
and you multiply by the speed of light squared to get energy density. This
energy density would equal some 200 billion volts per foot, if it was
coherent as electrical charge. Obviously, real-world devices cannot approach
such incredible energies. The effects accessible to our engineering efforts
will be many orders of magnitude weaker than the total energy (flow) of space
(time).
However, the noted effects are still repeatedly observable, if not altogether
overwhelming. It IS practical to change the speed of light, the inertia of an
object, and the local flow of time, all with electronically operated equipment.]
I did not create this information. These are not my own opinions. I am simply
regurgitating the foundations of quantum physics, presently the most successful
physical theory ever invented by man. The same basic quantum rules developed
your Pentium or G-3, the same properties of matter and space allow spontaneous
photon emmision from your monitor and enable your sight. I suggest accepting
these related princples. No one ever guaranteed that reality would immediately
make sense, but experience DOES demonstrate that these quantum rules represent
reality and what to expect from it. We can grow accordingly or remain as
ostriches in a comfortable darkness.
-Graham
14!
Good evening -
Today I was originally going to post my account of an experiment I performed
some time ago, which opened myriad new horizons for me once I recognized the
power I was dealing with. Past the border of those horizons, I must remain
silent and show, don't tell...
The original experiment posting will have to wait a day or two. Today, I found
an interesting primer to the idea, so for now, I'd like to recount a story...
For technical and intuitive reasons I have been looking for a kiln lately, with
which to perform a heat/energy treatment process on a material. I've had this
picture in my head of how to build "it" that I know won't leave me until "it's"
built.
A buddy of mine told me what a great kiln he saw at Brown something or other a
few months ago... so I decided to check this out, as it was supposed to be
minus the unneccessary crude thermostat and they'd probably sell it to me for a
bean-song.
So I made some time today, to go wallow in a sundry mudswamp, below a local
bridge. The owners of this pit named it, aptly, "Brown building supply", as
everything they sell is Brown on account of accumulated residue and
unidentifiable deposits.
Between the disused sinks and broken flourescent tubes - and no kiln - I found
some colorful items which captured my attention. The labels on these circular
objects read, "JCP-O CURRENT TRANSFORMER", so I carried away the biggest one as
a mystery consolation prize for missing out on my kiln.
This thing is a 10" wide vacuum-injection-molded tube, of solid construction.
It's real heavy, obviously has metal inside it. It's about 1 1/2 inches thick
on a side and maybe five inches deep. It takes the same form of an inductor
coil, cylindrical and hollow, so I assumed it must be one. Such coils are nice
for power factoring, and magnetizing stuff. A long quibbling went on behind the
desk when I tried to buy this object (it said G.E. on it, so it had to be
valuable, they said) and resulted in the decision to charge me $25 for the
thing. Too much, I said, for an ol' coil of wire. Fine, leave it, says the
fella. Ok, I will, I say...
But I doubled back and paid $25 for the thing, and didn't quite know why.
Putzed away in my old car feeling a bit ripped off, what for a lousy old coil
of wire.
Even more ripped off when I got home! I measured the DC resistance of the thing
at a little under an ohm. Ok, I think, let's plug it in and have some fun.
So I attach wires to the two large brass bolts protruding from the side of the
thing and turn on the Variac. 10 volts, nothing. 60 volts, still nothing. Uh
oh. 120...140 volts, deader'n a doornail. I recheck electrical connections,
becoming irritated. Oh no. I saw the dreaded sign above the door.... the one
that says AS IS. Goodbye, $25.
I can put a whole 140 VAC into this thing with no perceptible current draw, no
hum, absolutely no vibration of the Nd-Fe-B magnet in my hand. No magnetic
field at all... Dead coil.
WAIT a minute... One low ohm of resistance and no AC draw? What's the
inductance of this thing?
Turns out to be in the HUNDREDS of Henries. More than any air-core coil could
hope to be at that size, and still resist one ohm... unless...
Sure enough, magnets will stick to the thing... it's got an iron core. What's
more, there's no external AC field, so the field must be internal. This thing's
gotta be a toroid coil.
(Which makes sense, any conductor carrying a current through the center of this
thing would induce a corresponding energy in the toroidal coil around it,
thereby offering measurement of the large current travelling straight through
it. A nice idea, which I have seen before in large switching power supplies.)
Fast forward to the punchline...
I plugged the mystery tube into my 240VAC breaker outlet. It hums slightly but
still will not budge a magnet. Not even a slight vibration. I tried a regular
5,000-turn air-core coil in the bore, tied to my oscilliocope and observed only
microvolts of background AC. I used a Hall-effect sensor oscilloscope probe (to
graph magnetism, not electricity) which yielded a flat line as well, all the
way up to high magnification (0.5 gauss/cm). Ok, no magnetic field here.
Then I proceeded to "break the laws of physics", at least as they are
classically defined. I took a long wire with alligator clips at its ends and
wrapped it around the tube, inside and out, like toroids are wound, with four
turns through the middle of the "donut". I shorted the alligator clips
together, and re-applied AC current to the toroid.
The wire melted very quickly, before I could withdraw power. The vinyl
insulation stinks, I can still smell it. The alligator clips smoked and their
soldered connections began to melt. Aargh, this was a good alligator clip.
Thick wire!
WAIT A MINUTE. I am measuring NO perceptible AC magnetic field AT ALL, yet I am
melting 16-gauge stranded hookup wire, which takes about 30 amps to do right.
What the hell is going on here. I thought you had to have a magnetic field to
induce a current... and especially to melt wires! But this thing on my desk says
you DON'T!!! The real power here obviously IS NOT vector electromagnetism
and the familiar "flux cutting". There's none of it evident, at all.
And now, for the truly bizarre:
I said the toroidal coil will not move magnets, or even vibrate them, cuz it
won't, and that's that. There's no external magnetic field given off, that I
have been able to measure. So, I place a magnet in the center of this tube-
toroid thing and it's totally still. Expectable, for no field.
Next, I place a wire next to a pole face of the eerily calm magnet, sending it
through the loop of the tube and back around again. As soon as I short this
wire out, both wire and magnet go buzzing off willy-nilly. So I can generate
a "normal" AC, vector, vibrating magnetic field, from "nothing", with a... a
shorted wire.
Hey, that's the definition of back-EMF! Shorted or loaded conductors oppose
changes in external fields. So this magnetic buzz from the wire loop is being
generated by the current through the wire loop... that's pure back-EMF. The
force "pushing" the current is hidden somehow, we can't sense it as magnetism.
The current causing the (back) EMF in return is not hidden at all, it's from a
bare wire, and we can manipulate its magnetic field by orthodoxy.
Those more familiar with electromagnetic design may be well aware that properly
wound toroidal coils just don't have an external "vector" magnetic field. It's
accepted fact and also the reason why toroidal transformers are found in high
end (such as audiophile) equipment. They have Zero induction for any path that
does not go through "the hole in the donut". I haven't done anything new here
under the sun... except maybe ask an open audience a teaser question: How am I
melting wires with no perceptible magnetic or electric field? Isn't that
supposed to be impossible? Something like that old fad, "free energy"?
The answer to this question already lives in my work, and finds its comfortable
home there as a limitless energy source. Anyone with logical conjecture or
speculations on this zany matter recieves a dozen browser cookies! (or perhaps
something a bit more real, like a powerful ambient energy transducer.)
-Graham
15!
A few days ago I wrote about a high mileage vapor carburetor my employer's
brother developed:
(snip)
>>they recorded 68 mpg on a Chevy 454 towing rig with a 2-ton payload, under
>>stop-go driving conditions that included steep hills.
>>Apparently there are affidavits collaborating this.
George Wiseman replies:
>Can you give more details on how I can reach your employer's brother? I
collect such stories.
I'll email you with my employer's information, he may provide you with a copy
of the documented material. If anyone else is curious, let me know?
>>I personally think Mr George Hathaway has a brilliant idea, correlating fuel
>>availability to the engine with vacuum pressure sensing, so as not to waste
fuel
>>downhill. George, patent this!! All it takes is one good idea! $$ Just my
opinion, folks
>I know and greatly respect George Hathaway, but I'm not him. My Name is George
>Wiseman :)))
Gee, sorry. I have been known to confound my own name sometimes, when I'm not
stumbling into the pole right in front of me. My apologies, George Wiseman. 8)
Whatever I think your name is, I still say you "oughta" CAPITALIZE on your
idea, "patent" is a limited word implying what I suppose I really meant. Get it
out there, be first and best, who needs to wait for a patent. Can you perfect
the device for easy installation and sell it?
-Graham, uh, Gunderson
PS I will be posting the second anomalous energy experiment article tomorrow,
I thought I would have time tonight but I do not.
16!
Hey there,
I have had no spare time lately to read the daily reviews or submit to the list.
Sorry, things are incredibly hectic. Too much not enough.
I just clicked on the most recent digest and found - among all the unsubscribes
-
that there is some discussion here as of late, pertaining to high mileage
carbs and the theoretical maxima of such. My employer's brother developed a
magnetic/vapor carburetor about 8 years ago which roughly tripled gas mileage,
they recorded 68 mpg on a Chevy 454 towing rig with a 2-ton payload, under
stop-go driving conditions that included steep hills.
Apparently there are affidavits collaborating this.
I believe these figures agree with Al Francoeur's data?
-that is, roughly a tripling of efficiency.
I have thought that ultrasonics could fit in nicely here. Ever seen those
miniature bansai sculptures in overpriced yuppie stores that have little
miniature waterfalls and the like, replete with falling vapor mist?
There is a small ultrasonic transducer which achieves this effect. Costs
about $70 to buy (much cheaper to build :), drop some water on the little
brass circle and watch it fume away. Works real fast. Draws about an amp at 12V.
It occurs to me that such a transducer could be placed below the throttle
body of any vehicle to at least increase the atomization (surface area) of
the gasoline, if not totally vaporizing it. This is a more efficient method
than gross heating of the fuel/air mixture. Tuning would be a factor, as
standing waves would likely develop in the intake manifold.
I personally think Mr George Hathaway has a brilliant idea, correlating
fuel
availability to the engine with vacuum pressure sensing, so as not to
waste fuel downhill. George, patent this!! All it takes is one good idea! $$
Just my opinion, folks
Ultrasonics: No, not a miraculous cure-all - just a cheap, quick fix that I bet
would pay
for itself in record time. I'm gonna try it on my tired ole green Datsun,
probably in the
next millenium when my life finally SETTLES DOWN enough to accomplish anything.
On to the real reason I write: I was sent a recent article, either from the
Seattle Times or Post Intelligencer, I don't know the date (the article is
clipped) that chronicles the story of the "Plasmatron", a university-developed
gadget that does alchemy on HC fuel.
I'll excerpt:
'PLASMATRON' MAY CLEAR THE AIR
-Device could help cars' gas-burning efficiency
It's called the plasmatron and some day it could power your car
using the same process that fuels the sun, achieving a hundredfold reduction
in smog producing emmisions.
"and its completely compatible with existing automobile technology,"
says
Daniel Cohn, head of plasma technology at MIT
the experimental plasmatron is small enough to fit on your car's carburetor,
will likely cost only a few hundred dollars and converts gasoline
or even corn oil into hydrogen gas with such high efficiency it may
become one of our best weapons against air pollution.
(snip)
in 1993 alex rabinovich, the former Soviet scientist, came to MIT
to continue his work in plasma physics
rabinovich mentioned to cohn how he had set up a low-temperature plasma
reactor using common fuels to give his lab
more than the government allotted power supply.
"that got us real excited", cohn said, "we started looking around for how
we might put this to use."
(snip)
what they have arrived at after considerable tinkering is a plasmatron
that converts some of the fuel to hydrogen gas that is fed
back into the regular fuel supply. this hydrogen rich fuel is sent to the engine
where the hydrogen allows the engine to burn the fuel much more efficiently at a
lower temperature.
[heat is waste energy, remember]
(snip)
jeff surma (snip) pushed the even more futuristic concept of burning mazola
or any other kind of carbon-containing fuel in plasmatrons. (snip)...
plasmatrons might reduce the need for oil refineries by essentially making the
car a
"mini refinery"
(snip)
[here's one for you, Dye]
virden noted that plasmatrons could also be used together with the fuel cells
being explored for use in electric cars. fuel cells run on hydrogen gas.
[end of article]
I know that was a sloppy job of transcribing, hope it was still legible.
Am in a hurry.
also, many of the "shelved" (read: government seized per patent law)
hi-eff.carbs
use a heated iron catalyst to "crack" gasoline HCs into alcohols, methane,
ketones and o2. This process is what gives occasional reports of 500 mpg
and other "absurd" efficiency ratings in mundane vehicles.
It's because we're not burning petrol anymore but molecules which react
with higher volumetric efficiency.
When word started to spread about this technique, leaded fuel was introduced to
the market. Even a TRACE of lead kills the catalytic effect of heated iron.
Interesting, to watch the timing.
The heated iron effect is for real, ask a chem buff
Two final things:
1. our cars are already electric. They are! The pressure which drives the
collective piston of America is given by molecular repulsion.
molecules repel because of their mutually negative electron "skin".
The like charges repel, creating pressure in a confined system. (Combustion
chamber, latex balloon, earth's atmosphere etc.)
All combustion really does is
a. increase total surface area (therefore repulsion) of combust.chamber
molecules,
by breaking them into smaller pieces from the original larger HCs. Attraction
and repulsion are functions of surface area.
b. increase temperature, which moves the molecules randomly closer to each
other
(remember the formula for EM attraction/repulsion is an inverse square law) - do
the math, it increases the repulsion (this is why gas pressure rises with
temperature, it's an electron-skin phenomenon. Electrical repulsion!)
We all own electric cars ALREADY.
Too bad the discarded electron carriers brown the horizon
of this beautiful rock we share. Ignorance is smog.
There are ways to increase the mutual repulsion, but they are proprietary,
let it be known that it is possible. I know of 3 ways, I suspect there are more.
Treat it as an electrical problem, not a chemical one.
Thing 2:
The notion of "fuel" is a fallacy. The force that motivates every fuel to react,
every molecule to repel, every magnet to attract, so on, so on -
the driving force behind every physical process of change is one and the same on
the
subatomic level. It's all about "fields in space"... these "fields" govern
what binds together or flies apart. "Fields" are the only thing that have ever
moved atoms. Push against something, you're not even touching it, only a
thin, repulsive electric field. THIS is all you are feeling!!
You are hovering a few angstroms above your chair as you read this.
The pressure you feel is, again, an
electrical charge interaction, between the electron skin on your skin and that
on the object you're pushing against.
All we see, all we touch: electrons. This is the subatomic reality
Feynman proved that there is no such thing as a "field", in and of itself.
Tesla knew this a century beforehand.
Space may contain the
potential for a field, but without an object to act upon, (electron, etc.)
only the POTENTIAL for that field exists.
Bear with me, folks. Please be this truth known.
By adjusting that POTENTIAL directly, one can mimic the energy pattern of
any fuel or physical energy process.
Even mimicry becomes unneccessary, ambient energy can be directly released
with no middleman.
The fuel is the body, a body with no ghost inside is dead.
The spatial potential is the ghost, the true energy manifesting thru the "fuel".
The fuel, per se, is our limited physical excuse for an energy carrier.
It is the same fallacy as believing our bodies are the extent of our being.
We are wrong to think "fuel" has much to do with the actual energy, aside from
focusing it, and rendering it physically tangible, just as your body does
for your spirit.
The energy (charge) structure of the "fuel" is what contains the true oomph
and zip. It's not the solid object, it's the immaterial motivation.
When we become collectively enlightened to the degree necessary to realize this,
we will be ready to let the polarization of vacuum energy do all the work.
It has been doing so already, since creation.
Not a thing has moved without it, from day one.
Vacuum energy is the home of all quanta, "quanta" (energy units) are its
children,
as drops are to the ocean.
Though energy has always been "free", "free energy" deserves to be called
Ambient
Energy, it is a much more accurate term, and far less misleading.
The only thing we ever run out of is the physical cages that hold finite
amounts of this primal energy. We name these cages hydrocarbons or uranium or
breakfast cereal.
The cage is no longer necessary once we understand what lives inside it.
Knowledge is power, we all know that. Literally, it is true.
I would encourage all you people reading this to meditate and reflect upon the
true nature and source of all energy, while you are tinkering with your
carburetors, fuel cells and antigravitators.
Fuel is a lie, so long as we assume it to be the source of energy.
Fuel just lets this energy out, and there are other ways to let the energy
out that do not consume resources.
We are so well trained to think otherwise!
-Graham
17!
Very interesting, all this.
First, I'd like to point out that further global warming due to excessive free
power consumption is already a moot point. Three reasons:
1) The most effective means of zeropoint energy cohesion achieve thermodynamic
balance by exhibiting a cooling effect, as I've stated before in the
article, "How to spot a real overunity device". Disbelief of this constitutes
one's ignorance of quantum mechanical principles. The net effect can be a
cancelling of entropy, or whole-system heat content. Proper engineering can
factor the entropy change to zero - no net heating. The generator cools as much
as the light bulbs heat up, etc, the balance (system entropy) can be zero.
2) Having infinite energy at one's disposal implies limitless ability to do
work. Heat pumps require work. Therefore, we can run heat pumps free of energy
cost. A heat pump with liquid sodium coolant can compress huge amounts of
latent heat to a red or orange-hot glow, which is concentrated infrared energy.
This infrared output can be parabolically aimed at the sky, similar to a
satellite dish, beaming the undesirable heat out into space. If the cooling
radiators were dipped in the ocean we'd have a crude thermostat on the planet -
beam the heat up, Scotty. Big project, but it's physically possible for a do-or-
die scenario. Right, it'll probably never happen.
3) Internal combustion engines, for one example, often waste over 4/5 of the
expended chemical energy as heat in the radiator. Feel that warm air on an icy
day, coming from under the hood of your car. Can you imagine how many watts
worth of electric heat it'd take to achieve a similar effect? Five digits, at
least.
Eliminating such embarrasing waste - and the obvious pollutants - would
generate less heat, not more. Same goes for coal/diesel/natural gas-fired power
plants, in addition to the disgusting nuclear errors still in operation today.
These outdated "technologies", and their waste heat, would founder and vanish.
Increased efficiency can easily outweigh increased consumption... even in a
system where the net entropy has not been designed to completely balance.
***
Interesting post, TSM. Particularly in that you realize that o/u and gravity
effects are intimately linked.
In fact, to be rather philosophical about it (uh oh) one can state that all the
higher order aspects of the universe are trinities. The most obvious examples
are things like the three spatial dimensions (3D) and such triunes as Father,
Son and Holy Ghost. Lots of examples out there... we live them.
One such triune that will likely recieve much recognition in the coming century
is the force to which we have also given three separate names: Vacuum energy,
gravity, and time. It's all spacetime, folks... to change one aspect is to
affect them all. The only separations are in our assumptive perception.
TSM, I will get back to you on what you sent me a while ago, some very
interesting information there. Lots to sort through, it will take me some time.
***
I think Mark Harrison deserves a response, but I'll try to keep it brief...
[Mark's words begin with a > symbol.]
>I was under the impression that this list was for discussion and not for
solicitations of investors.
Nobody's asking for your money... Francouer originally seemed to be asking for
advice, and a little direction, not the wallets of free_energy members.
>I was hoping to come across as being stern not angry.
In my opinion, a thin line to walk. Expect confusion when you're being "stern"
in a medium that cannot convey vocal tone or facial expression. People will
normally assume you're mad about something. Chalk it up to human nature.
[graham]Let's not advertise our prejudice and ignorance.
>[mark]Please elaborate. I admit my prejudice toward people who make CLAIMS and
ask for a hand out. I do not like it and think if everyone adopted this stance
we would be better off. If I advertised ignorance in any, please let me know. I
welcome education.
Again, I don't think anybody's asking for pidgeon food here, just some useful
feedback. Prejudice is prejudice. It's a cataract in the lens of fair
perception and thought. Why pre judge anything? I have yet to see any righteous
justification for any prejudice... it does not smack of intelligent evaluation.
[graham]Are typographical corrections the best rebuttals you folks have to
offer? Must you waste time with trivial issues that do not relate to what we
are all really here to discuss?
>[mark]You seam [sic] to be the only one who thinks the misspelling remarks
were the BEST rebuttals.
Excuse me? I seam like what? This seems odd to me. (grin)
>The way I see it I was doing him a favor because it was not truly a typo but
case of misspelling. [snip] If you had fully read the posting you would have
noted that I did not invalidate his views due to this error.
Just so long as pot doesn't call kettle black. I do hope we can continue
discussions based on the merit of the point being made, not the buttons people
push on their [recycled?] keyboards. :)
>I am sorry that you have allowed your self to be disgusted.
... disappointed would have been a better word.
Thanks, Mark, for keeping an open mind and not being too proud to learn. Wish
the world could be that wise.
***
Chris A: If you've got something that self-runs, great!! Many people do. One
thing I've learned is, as tempting as it is, don't go spouting it on the
internet... something about it causes trouble. Or at least it doesn't get
anything done. Careful what you say, and to whom. What they don't know won't
hurt 'em.
Got some brief advice, if you like:
1) The US government has siezed over 3,500 patents which "threaten national
security". There is a legal clause for this, and it's enforced. There are four
general categories of siezed patents, I'll list them by frequency from big pile
to short stack:
a) Weapons technology developed in the private sector
b) High-mileage carburetors (vaporizing, emulsifying and catalytic)
c) Energy patents (not necessarily overunity)
d) Chemicals (war toxins, explosives, etc)
If you submit a patent that the US government would like to seize, you will
recieve a form letter informing you that if you basically so much as think
about the idea again, you will be fined a maximum of $250,000 and imprisoned
for (I think) a maximum of 20 years.
Nobody's pocket change. There is a handful of Americans whose intellectual
property has been abused in this fashion... if you can call 3,500 a handful.
(In my opinion, any submission cool enough to threaten global equilibrium ought
to be quietly rewarded for its potential... bought, not stifled. Such practice
suffocates fabled American ingenuity.)
I believe the full text of this unfortunate law is posted on the KeelyNet BBS.
If you really want to go the patent route, I suggest you divide your invention
into pieces that you can individually patent. This way you gain protection from
the feds who are none the wiser about the synergy of the whole. This also gets
around "having to" claim overunity operation (or any red-flag claim of "high
efficiency").
I would personally reccomend against waiting for a patent. If you want it as a
backup, you can play the roulette. But don't wait around for it: I can pretty
much guarantee someone's gonna beat you to the punch. O/U is probably going to
appear in public very suddenly and without much warning... all the more
suddenly to those who are sitting on a pair of arse cheeks. I look at it this
way: me and my money are gonna die someday. The work will live on as a
foundation for change.
Which, dare I ask, will be more important 100 years from now?
-Graham
18!
First, I want to get this out:
It is just as foolish to make an unsubstantiated clam as it is to denounce a
claim without having investigated it. Al Francouer recently joined this list...
is an unwarranted flaming the best welcome we can offer?
Let's not advertise our prejudice and ignorance. If you were being judged,
wouldn't you expect to be considered innocent until proven guilty? WHY must
folks here immediately flame people who claim success? Do you all want to pay
for energy for the rest of your life? Perhaps we ought to let you?
Are typographical corrections the best rebuttals you folks have to offer? Must
you waste time with trivial issues that do not relate to what we are all really
here to discuss?
I must admit that I am disgusted. Free_energy members, we can do better than
this.
Mr Al Francouer, I would suggest that you quit squandering your time in this
minefield and contact Zpower coporation directly. Zpower is an independent firm
which is devoted to licencing and distributing overunity technology. If you
want independent verification that can offer you more than just a one-
time "reward", goto http://www.zpower.net/
Don't take my word for it, or blindly assume I have something up my sleeve:
Find out for yourself!!! Contact Reed Huish! Draw your own decision!
Zpower will verify your device's operation, evaluate its commercial viability
and provide development capital and distribution networks if your technology
proves viable. I encourage you to make contact, so as to formally ascertain the
merit of your development.
Best wishes,
Graham Gunderson
19!
If you read what I wrote above, you know that I pointed out a website that
chronicles some free energy activity and history.
Some time ago, when I was attempting to describe the operation of Newman's
motor, I mentioned that the arc across the commutator (or in a suitably
connected gas discharge tube) may have a lot to do with it. At the time of that
writing, my comment about the quality of the arc was basically an intuitive
suspicion.
Not anymore... again, if you're curious, check this out!! Apparently, recent
experiments in Europe have confirmed that the real overunity effect in a
Newman motor lies somewhere in the mystery of the spark.
(Stefan Hartmann's overunity.com page is an excellent compilation, in my
opinion. He's also got some nifty dirt on our old buddy, Dennis Lee...)
http://www.overunity.com/newman2/
20!
Hi,
I have been offline for awhile, sorry if I have confused anybody. Not dead yet.
A while back, I tried to explain what I understand to be Joe Newman's "vision".
I regret getting into it at all. The subject is a complicated one and there
are too many paradigms which must be shed to gain a more complete
understanding. I have read some of the recent digests and it seems that
folks are responding in apples, to what I was talking about in terms
of oranges... Now we've ended up with the inevitable fruitcake. To get
anywhere with free energy, you MUST let go of standard electrodynamical
analysis. You can't play this game on that playground. It's against the rules.
And dare I say that our rules are imperfect human inventions. They have
no fundamental significance.
So, although I could clarify more, that is perhaps Newman's job, and you bet
he won't bother. Newman's actions tell us he wants money, not credibility.
Simply put, if anyone would BUILD a prototype of a Newman motor (as I once
did, 8 miles of 22 gauge Nysol wire and $480 worth of 40 MGOe Neodymium
supermagnets), and test it, one would see that the effects observed,
particularly in their extremes, CANNOT be fully quantified or described in
terms of, well, the terms we use. There's something else going on there, which
easily eludes understanding.
I know that none of us probably have the thousand bucks or so it cost me to
assemble a prototype... especially of something that doesn't work very well.
Don't go building Newman motors, they're relatively crude.
The price/performance ratio is upsetting!
However, I did attach a drill chuck to the shaft of my Newman model and I was
able to repeatedly drill 1/2" thick plate steel reasonably fast on less than
20 watts, with a 3/8" bit. Cold motor. My drill press (all 750 hot-air
blowing volt-amperes of it) can't argue with that. (The prototype's switching
was solid-state, at over 50,000 hertz. Mechanical commutators are a joke.)
If anybody wants to discuss some experimental results, I'm game. I do not
have the time necessary to discuss obsolete theories that say "it can't
be done", because it's already BEEN done. I've built reliable,
self-running prototypes. So can you. 'Nuf said?
I'd like to respond to what Mike Carpenter wrote a while back, in reference
to the experiment I posted. Mike's opinion was that the spark's energy was
blowing out the lightbulb in the experiment; this is obviously not free energy.
>Graham, I have a question about the capacitor discharge test on the magnet rod.
>At the end you mentioned the coil around the magnet and blowing a few light
>bulbs. I have to you and list members as well, to tell me if you think the arc
>discharging across the coil without the magnet or any thing inside the coil
>other than air would also induce a current large enough to blow the bulb. I
>think it would.
By "across the coil", do you mean, a spark through its bore? I doubt you'd see
much power, but feel free to PROVE me wrong.
>Graham claims it was the collapsing field of the magnet rod that induced the
>large current. Since it was a really small magnet, and altho it was
>demagnetized very quickly, I have to question whether the collapse of a field
>that small would produce a current the size claimed by Graham.
Good question, and there's a good answer.
In one of your standard electronics texts, you can see that the energy of
changing magnetic flux (whether it's growing or shrinking makes no difference,
it's just the change) is equal to db/dt, or in other words, amount of field
change divided by the duration of the change.
The Alnico rod I used has a remanence of 12,800 gauss. This is about as strong
as a permanent magnet gets, in terms of flux concentration. (Oriented
neodymium-iron-boron, the "strongest magnet" material available today,
has about the same remanent gauss intensity, but it's a "harder" magnet,
way more resistant to opposing fields and demagnetizing influences -
including its own. In magnetese, it's called a "high coercivity".)
The Alnico rod's field collapses to 0 gauss during a discharge lasting about
a nanosecond. This is not just very fast, it's damn fast. So, to get a taste
of the energy released by this small rod, divide 12,800 gauss by 0.000 000 001
seconds... that's a HUGE number - 1.28 times ten to the thirteenth power.
By way of comparison, the magnetic fluctuation in a regular AC transformer
is usually on the order of about 18,000 gauss, which is a bit stronger.
The change in magnetization occurs 120 times per second, meaning that each
period of fluctuation lasts some 0.0083 seconds, or 8.3 milliseconds. Doing
the math, we get 2.16 times ten to the sixth. This is one ten-millionth of
the previous figure, with our zapped magnet. If normal AC transformers can
light up lightbulbs, what happens when we mess with a delta energy that's
been scaled up 10 million times?
>You cant possibly insulate a wire that size around a magnet that size with
>big enough rubber to prevent it! [referring to arc-over]
Have you actually done this experiment, Mike? I'd encourage you to do so.
The magnet I used in the test was wrapped with a layer of 3M high-voltage
tape, as thick as the magnet's diameter, about 1/8". The kicker here is that,
if you arc through onto magnet wire (especially with 15 kV!), the blast blows
the fine enamel coating off the wire, in addition to scarring the copper. Even
a very fine spark can do this, breaching the insulation. I even tested the wire
in conductive (salted) water afterward, to check for leaks in the insulation.
After 50 or so discharges, the enamel was still entirely intact!
Remember here that the magnet was held at ground potential and that the whole
15 kV drop (and therefore the vast majority of the spent power) was in the arc
itself. Though a heavy current flowed through the magnet, the voltage across
it at the instant of the discharge was not enough to arc in even a small way.
(I have repeated this experiment without that nice 3M stuff, enameled wire
wound directly on the magnet. Still no breach of insulation or other evidence
of arcing... as long as there's a load connected to the coil.)
>You mentioned tests of the discharge characteristics and they were all the
>same regardless of the things you put into the discharge loop. I pretty much
>expect that. And if they were different at all, I would expect the difference
>to be so minute as to be difficult to measure with simple equipment.
I would like to suggest that your "expectations" have misled you. The
resolution of the measurements was high enough to observe the signature of
each individual spark. Averaged over successive runs, there was no net
difference between magnetized/nonmagnetized tests, for a given magnet.
Different magnets do give different results, as do different metals, but it
makes no difference (draws no energy from the spark) if the magnet you have
under test is magnetized or not, or if there's a coil/load or not. This means
that the energy given off from the magnet when its field collapses is not
energy from the instigating discharge, but from inside the magnet itself, as a
response.
>However, you didnt mention the bulb test being done without cores. Wouldnt
>that test be logical to perform unless you'd already made up your mind that
>the bulb was being destroyed by a huge current coming from the collapsing
>magnetic field of a really small magnet? Wouldnt you have to be sure it wasnt
>coming directly from the static discharge?
There was no need for this, because the bulb would only blow if the magnet
was initially magnetized. When I repeated the test with a nonmagnetized Alnico
rod, nothing happened to the bulb, no light at all. In fact, I tried the
experiment with a slightly magnetized rod and the bulb just flashed... the
output energy was proportional to the initial magnetization of the rod. And it
WASNT proportional to capacitor voltage, it's an all-or-nothing deal. You just
need enough of a zap to pass the threshold of action.
It would be well to discuss these considerations at length if this was a
purely theoretical interchange. What I am trying to do is describe the things
that led me to working devices. If the motor I built on the principle didn't
work, then we could talk about what may have gone unnoticed or assumed away in
the test. But this effect is for real. So's the experiment that demonstrates it.
Also, in my motor there is no voltage even close to 15 kV. You can get this
same instant-demagnetization effect with FAR LESS power, because the magnet
doesn't CONSUME any significant power in the process. One can use a very small
amount of the proper energy to achieve this effect. The 15 kV used in this
experiment is simply what I first used to get this to happen. Admittedly, it's
overkill. You can get the same magic with much less wand-waving. But you have
to wave it right to make the bunny show up.
>You say you already have working devices and I understand the secrecy if you
>are under contract. But there must be more you can say to convince us.
How about, perform your own version of the experiment and concvince yourself?
Personally, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I am merely dispensing
information.
Also, the idea of feeding a current through a magnet to get anomalous effects is
not new. The pre-WWII work of Hans Coler in Germany was classified by the
"British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee" all the way up to the early
'90s.
Coler is claimed to have produced a generator based on the effect which had an
output of 60 kW. Things don't stay classified for half a century if they're
fake.
If you are curious, I'd encourage you to have a look for yourself at:
http://www.overunity.com/coler/hcoler1.htm
>I was expecting "experiments" and I guess you have shown us experiments plural,
>but they do seem to be all pretty much the same experiment. I was hoping for
>more and various kinds of experiments that you would tell us about. Do you
>have such?
I do. Originally, there were three distinct experiments I planned to post. The
first (in discussion here) was magnetic in nature, and led me to a self-running
motor. The second was purely electrostatic, a concept embodied by my generator.
The third deals with a new type of electricity and method of induction, and it
is this that I am currently refining in my present work, in a solid-state free
energy source.
The second, electrtostatic experiment I planned to post is the "secret" behind
the generator I assembled. And therein lies the problem: it's no secret at all,
it's downright obvious. The experiment is so simple that to perform it already
gives one a clear impression of how to create a device from it. I would be
giving the technology away, if I posted this experiment.
I know that sounds selfish. It IS selfish, but not unjustified. I worked
extremely hard to get where I'm at. I spent so much money and was paid so
little that I am still over $10,000 in debt, my credit's clean as a public
toilet and have been evicted three times because I couldn't afford rent. In
short, I was willing to make great sacrifice. I have sold the good standing of
my name, and I need to at least break even.
If, after years of grueling work, you bought a new condo or a Maserati,
would you be at all inclined to give it away?
I am not a specifically empowered "chosen one". They say Edison was retarded,
(and Einstien had a 45 IQ) but who cares? Creation is in knowing something is
possible and working your ass off to make it a reality. In the words of Edison
himself, "Invention is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
perspiration." I am attempting to convince you that you, too, can discover new
things.
For those out there who wish they could perform the electrostatic experiment, I
say YOU CAN. Get a Van de Graf generator, and insulate the top of it as thickly
as you will, so no electrons escape, only the free electrostatic field. Get
some capacitors and diodes to play with around it. And have fun. The purest
truths can be very simple.
Experiment three, regarding the new type of induction, is not so proprietary -
there are other ingredients necessary to make a f/e source with it. I am free
to post the basic principle, which I will do shortly, since there is an
interest in hearing more.
I came here to help people. That is why I spend time writing to this list. If a
reader wants to tell me that I'm "wrong", he or she is wasting their own time
as well as mine. If you can let your mind be flexible, and let go of what
others taught you, perhaps I can be of assistance as you learn the truth for
yourself.
-Graham
21!
This is a response to Wolfgang Metzler's paper on the basics of
electromagnetic induction -- for those who read it, this article may
explain Newman's aims... at least, his technical ones. Newman may be a
questionable engineer, but some of his ideas are genuinely interesting.
There's a lot to cover here, because we have to shed some assumptions.
Metzler's paper is factual, as evidenced by the fact that the same content
is available in any basic electronics theory book. Nothing new since
Faraday and Maxwell: in a conventional electric motor that doesn't
stretch the assumed "rules", Metzler's paper can describe the action completely.
Beware: such concepts as "EMF" and other "named effects" are CONCEPTS
only. They are NOT the fundamental CAUSES! Concepts are analogies -- they
have limits, beyond which they break down. This is why we can't
immediately comprehend any new technology: it's outside of the metaphor.
For this article, though, the old concepts will still work as familiar terms.
Telescopes, electric light, transistors, telephones, automobiles, airplanes,
microwave ovens... all once baffled us humans. The ingredients of our
modern lives were each once "impossible". Everybody knows this.
Joe Newman doesn't seem to have handled his situation well. Publicity got
the better of him, and mistakes cost him credibility. However, he started
with an interesting idea, and I think he deserves credit for that.
In bringing this up, I am not defending Newman (if one even can), nor am
I vouching for his device's operability. I'm not saying buy the book,
"believe", invest, or make a fool of yourself. I am saying, Pay attention! Joe
started with something really unique, let's see what it was!
If this were any ordinary motor, Newman wouldn't have gone far with it,
or recieved much publicity. The most apparent characteristics of a
Newman motor's form are:
1. Extaordinary length of wire. Miles and miles and miles of it.
One early design used 55 miles of copper wire!
2. Extraordinary amount of wire mass.
The copper coils in some of Newman's models weigh TONS!
3. The composite magnets were huge, weighing hundreds of pounds.
(Newer motors use smaller and stronger magnets, but the
"magnetic moment" [basically, strength times size] is about equal.
The magnetic moment is what counts for motor torque.)
So what's this all about? This stuff isn't cheap, as a stage prop.
What was Newman trying to do?
***
I'll start with #1 -- the wire length.
We're supposed to be limited to the speed of light.
Radio waves, electricity and elephants are forbidden to travel faster than this.
So, if we charge the end of a wire, electricity will race down the wire
at close to the speed of light. Not instantly, just very fast.
If we wind our example's wire into a coil, and connect a battery,
our electricity goes round and round inside the coil, like a train on a
rail, until it exits the end of the wire and returns to the battery.
The longer the track, the later the train arrives.
When we whirl electrons in circles like this, making them go round and round,
we always observe a magnetic field. In any motor, the magnetic field around the
electrons is placed so that it will interact with something else and
cause it to move. This is the idea at work in Newman's motor, as well
as the one in your refrigerator.
However, there's a major difference: In a regular motor, current FLOWS
through a couple hundred feet of wire (at most), along with a
magnetic pressure that moves something. The concept of a flowing source
pushing angular torque is identical to water through a turbine.
Water forced through the turbine equals pressure(PSI) times flow(CFM);
power spent in the motor equals voltage(V) times current(I). Voltage can
be compared to pressure, and current can be defined as flow.
V is to I as PSI is to CFM.
The water's running. Eventually, you're going to run out of water or have to
pay the water bill.
Newman's idea was different. In the original Newman motor, the coil is only
connected to the power source for LESS TIME than it takes for an appreciable
amount of electricity to travel through its length. In other words, the "train"
(electrons) is only "pushed" (connected to battery, etc.) for less time than
the trip down the long wire takes. The train never reaches its destination,
which is the opposite pole of the battery, because the connection is cut before
that could ever happen. Even near the speed of light, it takes too long!
The train never arrives at the depot. This means that there's not enough
time yet for current to complete its way through the coil, begin to flow,
and generate a back-EMF. To generate a "back-EMF" and invoke the standard
motor rules (as mentioned in Metzler's regurgitation), we must have current
(electricity) FLOWING in a COMPLETED CIRCUIT through a coil. None of this
EMF-generating current flows in Newman's original design, because time
doesn't allow for it. So, some of the "rules" that ordinarily "balance" a
motor into under-unity conditions do not apply.
We can compare water to electricity and see that, in the beginning, Newman
was trying to get his motor to run off "water pressure" without allowing
a standard motor's "water flow". What's the difference? Well, water
pressure doesn't require energy to maintain it. (A water tower just
stands there). Water flow, however, does. (Pumps require a push). If you
can run something off a PRESSURE, and no FLOW, you've got overunity,
because pressure can persist forever, if no flow bleeds it off!
This is a poor idea to try with just water.
Electromagnetism is a far more flexible medium once we break out of
rigid, hardcover thinking.
In a battery, "pressure" is voltage. Current, like water, is any flow at
that given pressure. If we let a battery just sit there, it can maintain
its voltage (electron pressure) for years, sometimes decades. If we "use"
the battery, and let it push current (a flow of electrons) through our
camera or our Walkman, (and cycling back thru the battery again) the
battery goes dead very soon (hours). The difference? Current. Stop the
current, and your battery's electrical charge lasts way longer!
So, Newman's idea to use timing and distance to block current flow signifies
an attempt to use electrical pressure, voltage alone, to spin a motor.
Since pressure (or voltage) cannot decompress (or discharge) without a flow,
the motor's action could - in theory - persist indefinitely.
Current times voltage equals power. If there's no current (flow), there's
no power. How can you get a magnetic field... with no power?
***
Next, for #2, the use of a huge copper mass.
Lost to many electronics technicians is the basic fact that the metal,
NOT the current, carries the magnetism on an energized coil of wire.
The wire is a rail for energy to travel on. We say, a wire carrying current
generates a magnetic field? No. "Electricity" IS the field around the wire.
(Look inside a conventional transformer or generator - all the stuff is
SURROUNDING the wires inside, but not actually interfering with them.
The energy that pushes electrons surrounds the wire).
For energy current to spend itself, it has to accelerate electrons. This is
where we see resistance and heat, sparks and light. Electricity,
for all the analogy, is NOT water in a pipe. It is an invisible train
riding a metal rail. It is the physical rail's equal motion under the
"train" that we see as electron current.
Many folks of old thinking refute this until they see and understand
(or build!) an overunity engine, or learn some of Tesla's work.
This is where the analogies break down.
If you have more rail, it takes more train to cover it, right?
Newman once did a simple demonstration. As I heard it:
He wound two copper-wire coils. One was huge, having many thick turns.
The other was puny, having few, thin turns. The weight difference between
these two coils was enormous, something like 100:1.
Now the RESISTANCE in both coils was made to be the same, (by choosing
different wire gauges) so the same amount of current would flow through both.
For the demonstration, Newman used the same battery on each coil. So, the
coil current and the battery voltage were identical for each. Current
times voltage is power - this means, Newman was feeding the SAME amount
of POWER, or electrical energy, into each coil.
So, the input energy was the same in both cases. When Newman energized his
puny coil, it only weakly deflected a magnet placed within it. When
he energized the large one, the magnet was thrown out of the coil
and the experiment, though already conclusive, had to be repeated. Between
coils, there was a huge difference!
How could this be, if the input power is the same in both cases?
The only variable in the demonstration was the amount of copper in each coil.
More copper, somehow, means more force. The gauge and turns of wire in a
coil determine electrical impedance. The overall efficiency (ratio of
resistance-wasted energy to useful magnetic output) is dependent on the mass
(or by gravity, the weight) of the coil alone.
The truth is this: The electron motion (current) thru a wire's resistance is
ALL converted to heat. The energy that pushes the electrons is temporarily
STORED in the magnetic field of the wire, by what we call "inductance".
So, if we tamper with (alter) the energized wire coil's field, we also alter
this stored energy, and can remove it from, or place it into, such storage.
(Giving rise to the notion of "EMF" and all the "rules" that govern the
transfer.)
The more wire, the more storage capability! Newman's coils in his demo
both HEATED with an equal amount of calories. The equal amount of electricity,
across equal resistances, did that. The larger coil just stored more
electrical energy, in the form of magnetism, around its copper. That's why
its torque on the magnet was so strong.
***
So, perhaps Newman's reasoning was something like this:
*The less current, the less power we spend.
*The heavier the coil, the more magnetism we get for any current spent.
Therefore, to get a lot of magnetism for a small amount of power (current),
use a massive coil!
*The larger the magnetic moment (bigger, stronger magnet), the more it
will move (torque) in a magnetic field.
Therefore, we use a high-voltage, low-current motor with a huge coil and
a massive magnet. Going to these extremes of coil and magnet
maximizes TORQUE for a given input current.
*If you interrupt a current before it makes a complete trip through a coil,
you have not completed a circuit. Power cannot be spent without a
complete circuit. No power, no current, no drain on the batteries.
(To do this, you need a long, long wire to counter the speed of light!)
From this, we can see why Newman's designs are high-torque, low-RPM motors.
The output of a Newman motor is TORQUE, not speed! Gear it up, gear it
down, whatever. The RPMs are the accumulated torque.
So, we have a very low current motor producing high torque without
anything new under the sun. If we're going to be outlandish enough to
claim overunity operation, though, we have to answer the question,
"where's the source of extra power?"
***
Newman's explanation for this is probably dead wrong. No direct evidence
supports it, only conjecture. Newman says the "atoms of the copper" are
"turning into magetons", or gyroscopic particles. If Newman can show us such
gyroparticles, proving their existence, maybe then we will listen to
why he says they exist. If he, or anyone else, can demonstrate the mysterious
absence of even one copper atom in the coil, we'll be amazed...
Until the cows come home, let's use off-the-shelf science that is already
proven.
The "life" in a Newman motor may be the very thing that erodes it!
The power is in the arc!
These motors have commutators that abruptly switch the coil, chopping
the current into pulses. These pulses can't make it through the coil in time,
because their length can't get down the longer rail fast enough.
Have you ever tried to stop a train? What happens when we disconnect
the battery (engine) now? The train coasts along the remaining track,
or wire. No coal in the firebox, just inertia.
In the electrical equivalent of this rough analogy, the train's inertia
(magnetic field) is converted to a spark across the commutator.
Inductors (coils) want to sustain current: if you try to stop them from
doing so (disconnecting the battery, etc.) they will arc - zap - to try to
sustain their flow of electricity. It's like inertia, a resistance to change.
The coil's property of inductance stores electrical energy in the form of
a magnetic field. When the battery connection is cut by the commutator,
the coil's magnetic field begins to shed its energy. Voltage rises and sparks
leap, eventually eroding the commutator. The current of this spark is parallel
with the original battery current -- the interrupted coil generates a spark,
and the spark feeds back into the coil, sustaining the magnetism.
This perpetuation effect, which produces additional torque, does not
require battery power.
Later designs use discharge tubes instead of airborne arcs, to the same effect.
Computerized and experimental analysis conducted by this author
show that the efficiency of such a design can approach 98%, excluding
bearing and air friction. Recirculation makes it pretty efficient.
If charge clusters form in the discharging arc (which is well-documented
phenomena, and in fact likely), the compression of the arcing current can
push this percentage over 100%. The voltage gain is provided by the
same force that powered Moray's original valve, and the patented Correa
tubes of today.
Charge clustering is the electrical equivalent of the physical Casimir effect.
Although hard to tame, it is accepted by physicists as an energy source.
Electrons can be compressed in powerful arcs to densities that form them into
clusters. At this close spacing, electrical repulsion breaks down and
the cluster behaves like a larger, super-negative particle.
Charge clusters increase voltage and focus the current: they form power.
It's in the math, it's on the net and you can read all about it!
(Another free energy motor claim involves an arc discharge also,
and is called the Gray motor.)
So, the evidence pointing to abrupt electrical discharge as the
energy source is:
*The current in the eventual spark is in the same direction as the
original battery's "push". To the coil, the developed spark pushes just like
a strong battery. The coil is made to regenerate its own magnetism in this way!
*Charge clustering occurs in sparks, you can see it on an airplane that's
been hit by lightning. Looks like a shotgun hit it point-blank with a
million tiny bullets. These are charge clusters, electrons pressed together
by the close-range Casimir force of space's ambient energy.
Charge clusters represent extra energy, higher voltage, for free.
*Charge clustered plasma vaporizes metal and can rapidly erode it.
You can see the effect on some of Newman's commutators. The spark's not hot,
no plastic is melted. But it chews right through the metal.
*When the National Bereau of Standards tested Newman's device, they
SHORTED IT OUT with a resistor across the coil. No spark could jump.
The inductance, or the "train's inertia" after the battery's push was
simply wasted - gotten rid of - as heat in the added resistor!
It was NOT focused and recycled as per the original schematic. You need
an open circuit (no resistor) for that.
Extra variables cause misleading tests; the efficiency was measured at some
25%. All the "back-EMF", or stored energy, was burnt into heat.
I, personally, find it irritating that "our" government would alter a
device, test it, and discredit unaltered devices based on altered results!
That's not science. It's not even honesty.
***
Following analysis of Newman's ideas, it becomes evident that the basic
principles, startlingly enough, are workable. Each one can be demonstrated,
individually, as fact.
Newman himself does not seem workable. He has not consistently demonstrated
proof. He insists on the energy source as "coming from" copper atoms, without
hard evidence. That's not proven science. It's blind superstition.
Since he doesn't know the true source of his motor's energy, he cannot
hope to effectively master it. Without full mastery, he will miss the most
potent, cost-effective incarnation of a self-running motor/generator.
Someone else will build a better engine, with ingenuity leading investment.
Perhaps Joe is among us who could learn from a little ancient Eastern wisdom.
Like any good martial art, you can use what's against you to your advantage.
The arc that puzzles the Newman motor is also its life.
The rest is just the necessary body for such action.
Enough has been said about the body, too little about the life.
Anyone who exploits the charge-compressing power of abrupt discharge
- like Tesla once did - but in this type of motor may be able to do the one
thing that Newman may never do: prove such a motor economical.
-Graham Gunderson
22!
In presenting information like this, there are two things I would like to
ask in return.
First, if anyone dares repeat this experiment or others that I mention,
please return the favor I have done for you in sharing information.
Post your results, and your thoughts. Communication is one of the
most effective ways to have a win-win situation that I know of.
Fear (resistance) can only hold you back.
Secondly, I would like those who use this information to observe that,
by posting it, I disclaim any and all responsibility for the consequences
of the information's use. This should be common sense: By exploring
these things for yourself, you agree to not blame me for any
mistakes you might make. I have no involvement in them.
And there are plenty of mistakes to be made. I am assuming that
anyone who wants to mess with 20,000 volts knows the monster
they are awakening, and will be familiar with high potentials
and how to handle them in a way that doesn't cost them their life.
Be safe. Beware. Use caution and common sense. It should go without saying.
And good luck!!!
-Graham
23!
Hi,
Those who are familiar with my work will by now know that my research
has focused on three separate devices. Each embodies a totally
different principle. One is a self-running motor whose overunity output
appears as torque. The second is a self-running generator, whose output is
in the form of DC electricity. The third device is solid-state (no
moving parts) and its output is 60 Hz AC electricity.
My effort is to enlighten others, both researchers and skeptics alike,
that the source of power for each is indeed free. I will describe
three original experiments I performed, one for each device, that
proved this fact to me.
I am here to present concepts. I cannot yet surrender my designs to the
public. It is my intent that competent researchers may understand
these concepts and build on them. This is the most I can do, in fairness
to myself and others with whom I have signed agreements.
I don't want to delude anybody. These aren't recipies for free-energy
devices. They are more like raw vegetables. It is up to any aspiring
"cook", as it was once up to me, to come up with his own secret sauce.
In other words, there are many additional principles and refinements that
must be invoked to give these concepts life in an over-unity system.
The recipe, so to speak, ends up being mostly secret sauce. So go ahead
and play with this stuff, if you want, but please don't expect
immediate success. There's a long road of hard work between here and there.
The first experiment I will describe is what gave, and gives,
life to my motor. It is a piece of the basic concept.
I have shared this information already with others on this forum.
I'll just tell you what I did, and you can go from there.
An Alnico magnet rod, one inch long and 1/8" in diameter, was taken
from stock and magnetized to full saturation.
A discharged capacitor, rated 1 uF at 20,000 volts, was placed on an
insulated stand. A ferrous metal platform was attached firmly to one terminal.
A thick, solid copper wire was attached to the other terminal, and bent
into a hook that pointed down onto the metal platform. The spacing
between the end of the wire hook and the platform was roughly two inches.
A circular, one-turn loop of wire with a six-inch diameter was placed a
foot away from the hook, in line with its arc. This wire loop was connected
to a pulse-current recorder. Current in the hook coupled, transformer-like,
to current in the loop. This means was used to measure the energy
characteristics of the eventual discharge.
The magnetized Alnico rod was placed upon the ferrous metal platform,
pointing up vertically toward (and under) the end of the hook. The gap
between the open ends of the magnet and hook was roughly an inch.
Earplugs were inserted, and protective goggles donned. :)
The capacitor was allowed to charge by conventional means up toward its
full voltage rating of 20 kV. The dielectric breakdown potential for one
inch of dry air is around 15 kV.
At some point in the charging process, near 15 kV of charge, the airgap
ionized and discharged the capacitor with a tremendous BANG and a bright
flash of light.
After recovery, the magnet was nowhere to be found. It was located twenty
feet away on the other end of the room.
IT WAS FULLY DEMAGNETIZED. It had no polarity whatsoever.
The experiment was repeated three times. The second time was with
an unmagnetized magnet. The third iteration used a 1" copper wire to
substitute the magnet.
The pulse-current characteristics of the discharge were exactly identical for
each test, proving that the demagnetization of the charged Alnico rod
consumed NO POWER from the discharge. Thus, it is possible to
demagnetize certain magnets with no expense of power. Power is fed through
the magnet, pole to pole, but none of it is consumed.
Wherever there is a changing magnetic field, we can place a wire coil there
and draw power from the field's change.
A coil of #22 gauge enameled copper wire was wound around the Alnico
magnet, which had been remagnetized. A layer of thick insulation between
the magnet and the coil was provided.
The ends of the coil were soldered to an automotive brake lamp of roughly
25 watts. The magnet was anchored firmly to the ferrous metal plate so
it wouldn't fly away with the lamp.
The experiment was again repeated. The light bulb burned out in a flash
of light, and its filament was destroyed. The coil was fine and its
insulation unbreached. This was repeated three times, and wasted three lamps.
Each time, the discharge characteristics were unchanged, and identical to
all the other recordings.
The characteristics were tested with the discharge directly through another
lamp (destroying it), and a power consumption in the hundreds of watts was
observed.
The energy which blasted the first three lamps was irrefutably coming from
the magnet's suddenly collapsing field. Extra energy, for free.
----
Astute readers will realize that this energy is not exactly free, but
has previously been stored in the magnet, in the form of its field.
There are magnetizing methods available which will conume power in
the magnetization. There are other ways to magnetize a magnet that
release, rather than consume, energy.
Such methods pertain to specific details that I am not at liberty to
discuss, sorry. Observation can make them obvious, and you don't have to
take my word for it.
It becomes possible to extract power from the magnet's field on
both magnetizing and demagnetizing cycles. In this way, power is
circulated but not consumed. Plenty of excess energy can be drawn
from this repeating circulation.
How you do all that, however, is up to you.
-Graham
24!
The Quantum Mechanical Mechanism of Virtual Energy
Quantum mechanics, for all its idiosyncracy, is the most successful physical
theory
ever adopted by man. Although counterintuitive, its principles yield results
that work
in the macroscopic world. Below, in the mathematically proven terms of QM, is a
description of
how electromagnetic overunity devices evolve "surplus" power.
A similarity between subatomic particles and the state of the entire cosmos is
that
both are in a state of long-lasting, if not perpetual, motion. Of all the
particles that
make up creation, not one in the universe is still. "At Rest" is, at best, a
mental constuct.
Beyond our minds, there is no such thing.
This is because the fabric, the foam, or the television-snow of space is
seething with
energy in patterns which are too complex to isolate and completely observe. In
essence, it is
pure motion and change.
These patterns take the form of "virtual" particles and waves, in the same
duality
observable everywhere else in physical reality. They define the shape that
energy can presently
take at a location, if such energy is present. There is a great complexity of
interaction.
It is the local polarization of this chaotic flux (called a "field") that gives
rise to
electric and magnetic charges, among the other physical interactions and forces.
Each component
of a generated electromagnetic field bends and twists the normally chaotic flux
in its own way,
producing organizations, or order, in the natural state of subatomic chaos.
Since order in chaos represents power and information, certain energy
structures can
organize the ambient virtual flux in patterns that will harness it effectively.
Farmers till
the earth in rows to cultivate their crops; whenever we utilize a power of
nature we are
using a structure that fits both our end and nature's resources.
Energy is what we are made of. Energy is defined by its motion. E=mc^2:
Whenever you are
moving energy, you are moving mass. You are not moving two "things", but one
"thing". The motion
of mass / energy drags space along with it (gyroscopes, inertia), and space is
potential energy.
Potential energy is energy that can manifest, given the proper opportunity.
By using the right kind of energy (which is virtual mass) moving in the proper
directions,
one can direct (or "gate") this potential energy out of space. This potential
energy can be
coupled to three-dimensional constructs (like electrons), moving them. From this
acceleration
arises the voltage and subsequent current we eventually dissipate in the load's
impedance.
This dissipation eventually returns the extracted energy to the vacuum in the
disordered
form of radiated heat, closing the cycle. It is the inital extraction of order
(energy) from
space that reduces its ambient disorder. This coupling of non-disorder (a
pattern) from space to
physical objects manifests in the real world as molecular stabilization, or
cooling. This is why
so many true overunity devices are reported to - and do - run cold. It is the
eventual
circulation of heat, or entropy, that makes the process inexhaustible as an
unending cycle.
It is profitable to observe that every "under-unity" device (a battery charger
running off its batteries, a motor being fed by a coupled generator, and so on)
always
"wastes" the excess energy as heat before the output falls to zero. The energy
always
leaks out in the form of heat. It is when this heat cycle is taken into account
and
closed - inadvertently or not - that we observe an over-unity efficiency. This
is the reason
why so much misunderstanding (and so many bogus claims) surround "over-unity
heat pumps",
among others. It is when the cycle of heat (or entropy) is closed that we are
free to circulate
as much energy as we please.
25!
Hi!
I am currently preparing a series of articles that I will post on this
forum over the next week or so.
These articles describe a few of the original experiments I have performed
in the past that proved to me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that
"free energy" is a viable source of power.
Many people have contacted me requesting more information on my
working devices. I am legally required, however, to provide no specifics.
This is frustrating to you, the reader, for obvious reasons. It is
also frustrating for me, because I cannot provide you with enough
information to go build something and end the great debate.
Credibility becomes questionable. The science ends up on the back burner.
So, I will describe a few of my original experiments, in hopes that
some light may be shed on the subject for anyone who cares to
replicate, or supercede, them.
And maybe that light that illuminates our subject here won't have
to be plugged into the wall.
In preparation for such information, it would be helpful to have a
background. The few people who have witnessed my devices in action have
all asked, "But where's the power COMING FROM?"
In my view, to know the source is to gain insight on how to tap it.
How can you keep an ordinary car running if you don't know about
gas stations? It's a lot harder.
So, the article I will present today deals with the energy source.
This is NOT conjecture. It is proven by the physical equations that
define quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a way of describing
reality on a very small, or even immaterial, scale.
It is also proven by the fact that one (as I have) may embrace these
concepts and build working devices based on them. It is this fact that
gives me the confidence to post such information.
When people ask me where the energy is "coming from", I ask them to
read this article. They never seem to get it the first time.
I wouldn't have, either. I encourage people to read it until they
understand it. It took me two hours to write, editing and re-editing,
until I was sure I had chosen every word for maximum clarity.
-Graham Gunderson
26!
Hi,
Thanks for all the interesting (and insightful) email responses. I responded to
everyone who
specifically addresed me.
I would like to publicly apologize for insulting Mr. Patterson, as it appears I
have done so.
I didn't come here to spread negativity! I just want to share what information I
am allowed to share.
To me, there seemed to be a low content of useful information in Patterson's
previous writings.
I found it discouraging to read lengthy discourses that could not teach me
anything substantial.
While the concepts Patterson states are familiar as any good quantum physics
textbook,
I personally could not detect evidence of these concepts being taken further, in
a material sense.
It is wonderful to hear about people's ideas. But ideas, by themselves, have no
tangible use in this
physical world. A thousand lonely ideas, for all their merit, cannot amount to
so much as
one successful action.
(This is why one patents a device, not an idea!)
I personally want to focus on successful actions.
People usually aren't interested in my ideas unless I can demonstrate them.
As observers, we believe what we observe. Concepts, ideas, and intentions are
not observable.
So people don't tend to have much use for them, alone. Once an idea takes a
physical body, and so
becomes real, people pay attention.
Many people contacted me - thanks, you all - requesting additional information,
schematics,
and the like. While there is some information I can share, the specifics of my
work are legally silenced.
I have entererd into legal (nondisclosure and intellectual property) agreements
which prohibit me from
sharing some of this information as freely as I would personally like to. The
man who hired me to
do this work needs to recoup his losses, and morally I feel obligated to let him
do so.
Some who are constricted in this (or similar) fashion begin to spout theory in
hopes that someone can
read between the lines and glean some insight. I do not want to repeat history.
While I am not at liberty to provide the details of how my devices work, I am
legally free to tell people
about experiments I have done. This is in hopes of giving people tangible
concepts to work with and
learn from. I have taken these concepts to a successful and productive end. I
know others have the
potential of doing the same, or better.
Over the next week I will post a few descriptions of what I originally did. If
anyone cares to do similar
work and respond to this forum, we can begin the learning that we (presumably)
came here for.
If anyone has questions, suggestions, or other productive things to say, I
welcome the correspondence!
-Graham : infinitenergy@...
27!
Hi, I'm new to this list. Eric Krieg introduced me.
I am an active researcher in the free energy field. I have two working devices,
one is a generator,
and the other is a motor. Both are self-running.
I have a solid-state prototype in the works, awaiting parts.
And I know you all don't believe a word I'm saying! That's good!
I have gone through some of the recent archives to figure out what is going on
here and I keep hearing
about this TSM fellow. He does not seem to stand behind his real name. I don't
get it. The style reminds me
of an adolescent hacker making himself out as Fabio in a chat room somewhere.
I just want to point out that all this talk about room-temperature
superconductors is likely some
amped-up verbiage. I've got a bunch of room-temperature superconductors in the
other room, all different
types. I have some on my refrigerator too. They're called permanent magnets. In
any good magnet text (including
Howard Johnson's motor patent, he puts it well) the conclusion is made. The
superconductive effect is just
bound to electron orbits and does not travel between atoms. The temperature
(moluecular disalignment) is
too high for that.
If you do the math, a good neodymium supermagnet is equivalent to a copper coil
of equal size
carrying (depending on its theoretical construction) currents of HUNDREDS of
amps. But the magnet is
room temperature. It's not burning up. That's room temperature superconductivity
for you.
And if I take two of these magnets, repelling each other, I can get some nice
antigravity effects too.
Maybe this is not what TSM is talking about, things sound too vague at this
point to tell. But maybe it is.
Likely you will find, as members of this discussion, that people who are for
real talk like it, and can present
useful, concrete information that doesn't need to be shrouded in ambiguity.
A fertile imagination is great, a requirement for work like this. But we all
know what fertilizer's made of.
Those who get off the net long enough to till their fields and collect the
harvest will have bounty to share.
The way we've defined "space" and the "virtual photons" we use to represent
these properties are
all electromagnetic effects. To effect a differential, or a gradient, in this
ambient energy
(and fall into or out of it, and call the effect anti/gravity) we have to use
both of the energy's properties,
magnetism and electricity. To have kids, you need the man and the woman. This is
because we are all
human. See the analogy?
If Mr TSM (TalkSomeMore?) can testify to this in a coherent manner we can stop
squandering time with him.
He should be able to mention some vector constructs, some field configurations
or some concept that we can
understand that is in line with proven fact, or repeatable experience. If TSM is
unable to justify our time with
something concrete (and maybe even concise), then our time with him is simply
not justified!
I am not joining a flame war. It takes effort for me to tolerate
pious folks that cannot substantiate what they're bragging about.
-Graham Gunderson
28!
HOW TO SPOT A REAL OVERUNITY DEVICE:
The Hallmarks of ZPE Cohesion
Below is a list of characteristics that near all functional
(power-producing) overunity devices display.
1. Chassis Electric Potential
The ground, common return path, zero-volt or closest semblant connection will
have a
nonzero potential with respect to earth ground. The unit will likely develop a
wholesale electrical charge
and often perform better when isolated from earth ground.
This rule only applies to true, self-contained overunity devices. Any device
that uses a
planetary potential (ionospheric, hydro, etc.) will have to refer to earth
ground and should be referred
to as an Earth Battery.
2. Entropy Shift
A self-contained device placed in a temperature-isolated compartment (separate
from the
load) will have an ambient temperature at equilibrium that will be "incorrect".
The total heat content will
not agree with the device's internal dissipation.
The device and the entire load's heat content will often be equal (or nearly
equal) in absolute
value. In other words, the system's entropy will balance.
While the true implementation of this method involves calorimetry, many
effective and powerful
overunity devices produce temperture effects that one can sense directly by
proximity or touch.
3. The Presence of a Moving Electromagnetic Field
Magnetism and electricity taken seperately each have three distinct
incarnations. One E/M
pair is motionally induced. The other pairs are the time-varying, or
electromagnetically induced, and the
static. The different combinations and permutations comprise the method and the
action of the
device's operation.
There is no simple detector yet built that can readily verify o/u operation by
measurement of
fields. However, there is a superset of EM interactions that a self-contained
overunity device may
effectively employ. Each set involves time-varying Poynting vectors, which are
the the third-dimensional
components of the intersection between superimposed, and moving, electric and
magnetic fields. In
this fashion one may evaluate a device, or its plans, and determine merit.
Poynting vectors - at right
angles to magnetic and electric interactions - are what give life to free energy
generators.
4. Relativistic Effects
The weight, or inertia, of the device or its parts will likely measure
"incorrectly" given the mass
and velocity. This is due to the development of the above-mentioned Poynting
vectors, which are
modulations in the density the energy of space. Among such modulations - and
dependent on them -
are gravity, inertia, and centrifugal force.
5. Power Fluctuations
Under regulated input conditions, most overunity devices have an output power
that is not
constant but varies slightly (or quite a bit) with daily, lunar, diurnal, cosmic
and planetay cycles. The
output variation reflects the fluctuation of the energy components of space,
over time, that the device
is receptive to. All known overunity devices have a geometry that is
anisotropic, or dimensionally
oriented, and objects (from magnets to supernovae) in line with certain
orientations will affect output,
as they move relative to these orientations.
6. Spatiotemporal Modulation
Empty space has an energy density exceeding that of the human imagination.
Spatiotemporal
effects are usually only observable at energies or frequencies that can
appreciably alter this energy
flux, involving, on our scale, a lot of power. Some of the more common effects,
besides those
previously noted, are the generation of scalar waves (basically, the presence of
curious effects at a
distance) and time dilation or contraction when measured by any kind of clock.
7. Output Power!
As a rule of thumb, if it's over a watt, it's expandable / scalable. Crystals,
stones, plastics,
organics, bimetals and others on a long list can produce less than this for
those who wish to make
overinflated claims.
It need not be complex. If someone describes their device to you and they
mention that it gets cold
when it's on, if they talk about "average" output power over time, if they say
something about the
grounding, and that it employs fields / charges that move, if they say that it
gets too light, moves or
vibrates objects in close proximity, and it can source anything more than a
flashlight bulb, pay
attention.
Otherwise you'd better start looking for the hidden battery...