DEBATE THREAD

[bw]

someone who doubts free energy should pull the plug on a sink or tub of water and observe the vortex, then study the vortex.  did you know you can buy a small vortex gun that will completely seperate all hot air from all cold air and discharge the hot air from one end and all the cold air from the other?  these are driven only with compressed air 80-120 psi.  you can buy one of these to play with for about $130. u.s.   also more than one company has a vortex that crushes rocks or grinds corn, or smashes anything dropped into it.  this machine is driven by a fairly small electric motor.  rocks come out as dust.  by the way, it is also overunity.
consider the possabilities and continue working.  everything wants to spin, every planet, wind current, bath water, cube magnet currents, tpu's, satelites, everything.  don't force it,  encourage the spin.  treat the spin like a child swinging, a gentle nudge at the proper time and direction, let natural forces do the real work for you.  if you can't figure it out don't knock the ones who are in that process.  many have good reason to delay this and i can't really blame them but for the good of the planet we have to share, this must continue.

bw

[hansvonlieven]

@ bw,

Good points you make.

Did you know that Helmholtz wrote a book called "?ber Wirbelbewegungen (1858)" (about vortex movement) which is the foundation of hydrodynamics and modern vortex theories. Unfortunately I have only found the German original, though translations must exist. I haven't found one yet as I don't know the English title.

Incidentally, Victor Schauberger's work is based on Helmholtz.

It is also of interest to note here that the same Helmholtz formulated CoE.

Hans von Lieven

[tak22]

@Hans

Hermann von Helmholtzââ,¬â,,¢s paper ââ,¬Å"Ueber Integrale der hydrodynamischen Gleichungen, welche den Wirbelbewegungen entsprechenââ,¬Â, translated by P. G. Tait and published in English under the title ââ,¬Å"On Integrals of the Hydrodynamical Equations, which Express Vortex-motionââ,¬Â in Philosophical Magazine, vol. 33, pp.485-512 (1867).

tak

[hansvonlieven]

Thanks Tak,

Good info! 

Hans

[Omnibus]

Omni, you can attempt to change the subject to what people know or don't yet it's clear you don't have a proof the SMOT violates CoE.  You don't seem to know the difference between overunity and a violation of CoE.

It would be prudent for you to take an early retirement before your employer realizes just how incompetent you are.


Bessler007

. . .
Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.
. . .

Like I said, it would be prudent not to express opinions on matters such as violation of CoE you don't understand.