Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Steven Mark´s associate Jack Durban comes forward with more info !

Started by zapnic, March 17, 2008, 04:28:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

bolt

QuoteI do not see a reason to be angry on my hypotheses

Oh not at all Aleks at best friendly Saturday banter LOL

At the end of the day the only ones will know will not be armchair builders. Only the ones to roll up their sleeves will find out but i think we all agreed in the 5 mio posts on here that the TPU is NOT that difficult to build once a concept has been established and it most likely defy conventional electronic law because this is unconventional and the biggest lead we have is the similarity to other OU inventions and the inventors have all suggested they are powered by something other then conventional electron flow.

Motorcoach1

This thread shoud not have ever been started , it's like sticking a 2x4 in the spokes os a bicycle going down hill. Damm i know a lot of shit and you don't see me running down the street waveing my hands in the air , I could list a lot of people in this SM arena and make all you people say Damm he knows something and everyone runs to that corrner , WHAT A JOKE   ----  now I do belive there is away to do this and as i have mention before in my earyer post about descrete parts is soooo true and not much SS circutry.   something to ponder mmmmm   http://amasci.com/tesla/nearfld1.html   thanks

zerotensor

Quote from: aleks on March 22, 2008, 01:12:31 PM
According to my hypothesis the cause of this is that during implosions an anti-gravity field is created. Gravity is thought to be as ultra small power, but I believe it is so because it is not understood well. In normal conditions gravity is a negligible force, but it does not mean you can't change it to a considerable deviation where it becomes heavier and so influences matter in not so conventional ways.

IMO, the electromagnetic field is a special case of gravity.  The combination of toroidal and poloidal angular momenta in charged particles imparts a global helicity to spacetime, which is interpreted as EM.   From this perspective, gravity is the only "force".  The trick is to convert between the longitudinal and torsional components of the gravity field.  A "vortex implosion" sure seems like a good candidate for achieving this.  Perhaps the energy flow in the TPU emulates that of a charged particle, with the toroidal and poloidal fluxes "locked into"  some harmonious combination.

aleks

Quote from: Motorcoach1 on March 22, 2008, 02:07:11 PMhttp://amasci.com/tesla/nearfld1.html   thanks
Well, can you do the same with DC electric field, or earth's magnetic field, which is also close to DC? This looks like comparison of apples to oranges. Nevertheless it's an interesting read that shows a situation of non-linear interaction of EM fields.

zerotensor

Quote from: bolt on March 22, 2008, 01:39:07 PM
... think you are getting so deep in the theory it becomes a hypothesis rather then whats actually required to make it happen. Instead of describing an internal combustion engine with air and fuel mix going in with resultant force applied to the pistons you are trying to justify the argument at atomic level at the point of explosion to justify why gas burns to provide the energy. Even of you get this part correct you still don't know how the engine works but neither did it prevent any of the other inventors producing their technology...

Theory and experiment should inform each other.

One part of me says, "Let's just build the blasted thing and figure out the theory later",
while the other part says, "We need a theory upon which to base our design"

It's a bit of a pickle.