FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[chessnyt]

@Loner:
Wow!  What a couple of VERY insightful posts (back to back, I might add).  Now I see where and why you make the certain distinctions that you make in regards to categorizing different kinds of energy producing devices which I have now adopted as well (because you did such a great job in defining and expanding on your reasons for making such distinctions).

Rossi’s technology is NOT my forte’ as I am actually into (have been for the last 15 plus years) Stanley Meyer’s technology, which to me is simply the voltage disassociation of the water molecule (as it certainly can not be considered merely conventional electrolysis).  I am in the middle of my latest build and expect to release a video by February or March of next year of my results. 

Now it was NOT really in my best interest financially to start this thread on Rossi and help to promote his technology as I hope to become one of his competitors in the not too distant future.  I simply felt compelled to do so in the best interest of humanity as the implications of his work are much needed at this moment in time even at the expense of eclipsing other possible close seconds. 

I do believe that there is still plenty of room for competition in the long run as Rossi’s technology will take years if not decades to fully proliferate.  I believe his technology to be a great first step in paving the way (as well as educating the masses) for other exotic energy producing technologies that will soon become part of our commercial energy generating landscape. 

Now getting to the poll question attached to this thread; I was so blown away by your well worded posts that I have decided to reword the poll’s question to reference “Free Energy” as opposed to over unity as I now agree with you on the two separate distinctions you have made based on your own criteria.  I also see the clear difference between Meyer’s work and Rossi’s work as Meyer’s work does not lead to transmutations and Rossi’s does which means that the fuel/catalyst can not be recycled and reused by the device.

Thank you for your participation in this thread as I have learned some new things of great importance to me.


Best regards,

Chess       

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now getting to the poll question attached to this thread; I was so blown away by your well worded posts that I have decided to reword the poll’s question to reference “Free Energy” as opposed to over unity as I now agree with you on the two separate distinctions you have made based on your own criteria.  I also see the clear difference between Meyer’s work and Rossi’s work as Meyer’s work does not lead to transmutations and Rossi’s does which means that the fuel/catalyst can not be recycled and reused by the device.

Well Chess.  I'm afraid I don't get that distinction.  And nor can I subscribe to 'free energy' with or without a catalyst.  There's no such thing.

But the fact that you're developing something there?  Well done.  I'm sure, as you say, that there will be many that follow suit.  Provided only that it's cheaper and yet as efficient - then I'm sure it'll sell.

Meanwhile I think we should try not to trivialise the issue.  The fact is that Rossi has found a way to generate heavy duty wattage at a sustainable cost.  Which is EXACTLY what's needed.  The more who follow suit - the merrier. I'd be interested to see what comes out in the wash - regarding his 'catalyst'.   I suspect it's considerably more mundane than expected.

And my personal concern is that these cells are yet to be replaced by that 'perpetual motion' number that Loner is hooked on.  In any event.  It's all for the good.  In my book we cannot get enough experimental evidence.  And the sooner we resolve the physics the better - because that will ensure that the technology can be widely applied.

It's a bright day dawning.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

[chessnyt]

Well Chess.  I'm afraid I don't get that distinction.  And nor can I subscribe to 'free energy' with or without a catalyst.  There's no such thing.

But the fact that you're developing something there?  Well done.  I'm sure, as you say, that there will be many that follow suit.  Provided only that it's cheaper and yet as efficient - then I'm sure it'll sell.

Meanwhile I think we should try not to trivialise the issue.  The fact is that Rossi has found a way to generate heavy duty wattage at a sustainable cost.  Which is EXACTLY what's needed.  The more who follow suit - the merrier. I'd be interested to see what comes out in the wash - regarding his 'catalyst'.   I suspect it's considerably more mundane than expected.

And my personal concern is that these cells are yet to be replaced by that 'perpetual motion' number that Loner is hooked on.  In any event.  It's all for the good.  In my book we cannot get enough experimental evidence.  And the sooner we resolve the physics the better - because that will ensure that the technology can be widely applied.

It's a bright day dawning.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

@Rosemary:
I understand your statement about the existence of "Free Energy" as you could only technically call any and all devices to date "economically feasible" or highly efficient at best.  If you removed the cost of the device (construction materials/components) itself  (and none of the components were consumed in a chemical reaction, for example), then you could have a "Free Energy" device per say, otherwise the aforementioned strict criteria would mean that a "Free Energy" device could never exist.  So your point is valid and well taken.

Now for "over unity" to apply, the device must produce more energy than is introduced at the start while requiring no fuel or catalyst where either transmutation occurs or the fuel can not be recycled and thus can not be reintroduced.  I may be misinterpreting Loner here, but I hope that he will correct me if I have in fact done so. 

Now as far as my own research is concerned; thanks for the kind words of encouragement.  If this latest build of mine is a success, it will be cheaper by far to build and operate than the E-Cat but the results will be the ultimate decider.  No matter how the results end up though (successful or not), I will release them in a separate thread to keep this thread on topic which is of course Mr. Rossi and his contribution to our crisis ridden planet.

You have the floor, Rosemary, when it comes to the theory and science behind the E-Cat as my knowledge is very basic in LENR at best.


Warmest regards,

Chess

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary:
I understand your statement about the existence of "Free Energy" as you could only technically call any and all devices to date "economically feasible" or highly efficient at best.  If you removed the cost of the device (construction materials/components) itself  (and none of the components were consumed in a chemical reaction, for example), then you could have a "Free Energy" device per say, otherwise the aforementioned strict criteria would mean that a "Free Energy" device could never exist.  So your point is valid and well taken.

Actually I wasn't referring to the cost of production or purchase.  I really WAS talking physics - or trying to.  My point is this.  There's nothing wrong with the standard model.  Our own experimental results rely on the fact.  Where the standard model errs is in it's assumption that Kirchhoff's rules are the entire measure of what is generated and transferred in an electric circuit.  We rather depend on energy being made available from the circuit material itself.  In our case we use the inductive and conductive materials to re-generate an electric current from CEMF.  Mainstream assumption has been that the amount of energy available from CEMF is constrained to the sum of the amount of energy delivered less the amount of energy dissipated.  We propose, and prove, that the amount of energy that is returned to recharge a battery actually is greater than the amount of energy first delivered.  That's COP infinity.  Which also proves then, that energy must have been 'regenerated' in the material itself.  It's possibly not that clear from our paper.  But that's the whole point of those tests and the thesis in support of it.

Why I say there's no such thing as free energy is because it's the simple fact.  Energy is always some value related to the to the initial transfer.  And it's always wholly conserved.  The trick is to find a way to regenerate that energy in order to sustain a continuous transfer.  I'm not sure how Rossi does it with his cell.  But I suspect it's in the initial transfer of heat to the cell itself.  That imposes an imbalance in the material structure of the cell.  Anyway.  I'm speculating.  I'll give a link again to the 2nd part of that 2-part paper which points to the thesis.  You may like to read it again.  But pay attention to the appendix.

Just bear in mind that it is generally accepted that the weak interaction has never been fully defined.  Ever.  There have been stabs at it.  I'll add a link to that as well.  It links to my own overly critical analysis of conventional thinking.  Chess, there's something that we all need to get our minds around.  The simple fact is that no-one has established the actual material property of current flow.  Mainstream have made an assumption that the carrier particle for the weak interaction is the electron.  It's absolutely not possible.  And we've been flailing around in partial theories for far too long.  What we're trying to do here is to alert our academics to the possibility that there may be a particle in the magnetic field.  Put that in and you can resolve just about every outstanding paradox (a modern euphemism for 'mystery') if one does this. And there's lots of those paradoxes - or paradoxi?  lol

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   

Anyway - here are those links.

This is to the paper.  Read the APPENDIX
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/08/140-heres-second-paper.html

This is to that 'over view' of the contradictions in mainstream thinking
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Loner,

I was not intending to be disparaging in referring to you being 'hooked' on perpetual motion.  In fact I thought you drew a distinction here. 

.....lets use the RV.  This motor, if operating the way described, would be an "Overunity" device, as the output power is greater than the input power.  The only grey area might be if someone were to prove that parts of the motor were being consumed in a conversion process, but I haven't heard that theory in a long time so I am letting that part slide.  Either way, this could NEVER be described as perpetual motion until there were no moving parts.  Wear IS a consideration, but not to the overunity part of the equation.  (Nit-Picking, I know, but this is important to me.  Where in the process the "OU" effect occurs, that is what I am focused on.)  The "Fact" of overunity is not in question, as that has been proven.  ( I know most here has read the paper on using a voltage field to spin a rotor, with no current required.  Might have been super small, and of no practical use, but the effect WAS there.)  SO, this is my last point.  There IS a major difference between a "Free" energy device, and "Overunity".  This is out of my league as, truly, economics comes into play, where cost of construction, distribution, and all the accounting paperwork becomes important.  If it takes 100 Years for a proper ROI, then how free was it, really?  I've never been good at that part.  I can say for sure that most around here would have a better handle on that situation.  On that note, Rossi definately falls into that class, as cost of the unit, plus recharging costs, plus maintenance, plus any other fuel costs, etc., should end up being MUCH less than the actual value of the energy produced.  Is that a free energy device?  IMHO, YES!  Is that an "Overunity" device, or is there an overunity process going on in the unit?  My current opinion is "no", but I must reserve making a "Final" decision till the science is fully vetted.  It's still great work, no matter what.

Here's what you say.  'Either way, this could NEVER be described as perpetual motion until there were no moving parts.'  Actually we have no moving parts.  Nor do we have perpetual motion.  What I thought you were pointing out was that perpetual motion was an impossibility.  I simply agreed.  Golly.  It just shows how one's posts can be misconstrued.

Actually, having said that, I actually think there is a way to generate a perpetual spin.  But that still needs to be tested.  And I suppose the rule in physics is never to say 'never'. 

In any event.  It is my opinion that you're entirely wrong in your definitions of over unity.  I'm not sure that the weak interaction has been fully defined let alone the strong interaction.  But I'm actually not qualified to comment. 

Regards,
Rosemary