Young Bangladeshi Scientist's success story Power generation without fuel

[Koen1]

@allcanadian: Well since you seem convinced you know how to make an OU device,
after all, you're 'bragging' about being able to use electrical energy and then
re-use it by converting it from this "non-conventional EM" form into usable
energy again, in a mysterious Tesla-esque manner,
can you please enlighten a seriously curious fellow forum member?

I would like to know how to perform that trick so I can finally get
an OU electrical generator to work...

[pennies_everywhere]

Grumpy, my position is simple and rational:  If anyone wants to claim a "free energy" source, a new energy source, violation of CoE or any other claim that runs in contrast to current understanding, the burden is on them to provide the credible, verifiable evidence for their claim(s).  Your espoused fervent belief in things for which you have no evidence is faith, not science. 

Since you believe that free energy is readily available, where can one see it?
Since you believe that free energy is readily available, what was your energy bill last month?
Since you believe that there are folks who pay electricity bills "just for show" ( the utility does read that meter for billing old chum ), wouldn't that make them the real suckers?

Rant on, curse on.  Since you like the idea that speaking up rationally against blind faith keeps your secrets for you, I am happy to oblige.  If pretending you are 10 years old makes you happy, more power to you. 

P_E - the insolent little fukwad.  Always the same empty argument.  CoE is for closed systems and is based on an incomplete understanding on physics, yet you carry it like the Holy Grail. 

No one will ever show you the free energy that we all seak.  Rather than that we will watch you suck the oil-tit to the last drop.  So next time you're bending over at the pump to get your fill - just wonder how things could have been had you not been just another oil company bung hole idiot.

See, all of this free energy stuff that you scoff at has been figured out and replicated for decades and there is no need to prove anything to an insignificant copper-top like you.  The free world is more than happy to let you scrurry along aimlessly paying into the coffers of the oil cartel.  Hell - your ignorance keeps them off our backs!  HA HA ROFLMFAO!!!!

If you every look under th hood of an electric auto - wonder for a second if the batteries are just for show and what that black box really does.  Next time you see an electric meter spinning - suspect that the user actually has a dummy load on the circuit and the real power comes from his convertion unit - the one no one will tell you about - no one will prove - no one will allow to be varified - because it can't exist - LOL!.  When you pass a windmill - wonder if it's fake and produces no power at all, and that littel device that you laughed about provides all of the user's energy needs.

See Pennies, the only one getting conned is you - sucker!

[pennies_everywhere]

@Allcanadian, those fields don't "follow a single conductor".  You have mislead yourself with faulty observations.  Most people have the incorrect idea that waveguides for EM fields have to be made of metallic conductors.  This is not true.  You aren't playing with scalar waves.  You have just done a poor job of observing ordinary EM field propagation under your experimental conditions.

Let me give you a clue here:  What resonance does is to counteract the reactive impedance so that all that is left is the real losses.  A perfect resonant tank does not reduce the real loss of the transmission system.  It can't.  All conductors, more properly waveguides, suffer real losses through the forward path and by energy conveyed into the dielectric.  These losses are frequency dependent.  At low frequencies they can be made quite small to the point where with a dry air, or preferably vacuum dielectric the dielectric losses are negligible and the forward losses are limited to the bulk resistance of the conductors.  Absent superconductors, loss is still present in the forward path.  With the presence of any dielectric other than a vacuum, shunt loss occurs in the dielectric. 

@pennies_everywhere
Correct that is what I told you----energy is conserved
But if you had built some of Teslas patents as I have you would understand these are not conventional EM fields. Can coventional EM fields travel the surface of a single conductor to power a conventional load with near zero losses? Can conventional EM fields power a conventional load in a circuit as if that load did not exist? Tesla liked to use a large self inductance of sufficient capacity to counteract inductive reactance at resonance as well as high potential currents to reduce the capacity required to do this and it was always assumed this was to increase efficiency. What few people have considered however is what might happen if the load offered "no" resistance to currents of proper frequency and potential other than ohmic resistance. In this case what we have considered "work" (watt-seconds)becomes an illusion as the load would appear as nothing more than a straight section of conductor to the circuit.So Yes energy is conserved, there is no need for creating energy, OU, aether, zpe or fairy dust this is basic circuit theory.

[pennies_everywhere]

jibbguy, large underground antennae such as the USN uses in Wisconsin are completely explained by well established EM field and antenna theory.  If you are really interested, then read up on the subject.

@Pennies: So you're a Tesla expert, too (you must be quite an amazing fellow)... Then please explain to us what sort of "efficient coupling" is done by use of extensive buried underground antenna arrays; many of us would be very interested to hear the answer to that one.

[WilbyInebriated]

For example, we all know that 2 plus 2 is 4.  We do not have to try to prove this every time we do any type of math.  And if someone sat all day trying to prove that 2 plus 2 is not 4, well, that person is just wasting his time.  It's like unrolling a roll of 40 quarters ($10) and seeing if you can make the total amount larger through creative arrangement.  It does not matter if your stack the quarters in 4 rows of 10 or 5 rows of 8 or whatever other permutation you can think of.  You can roll the quarters and flip them and mush them together in a pile.  But you will never end up with more than $10.  It is impossible, and I do not hesitate to be brave enough to say it is impossible.

2 plus 2 IS NOT 4.
2 plus 2 IS 2 plus 2
YOU call it 4 for short...

"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its propositions are absolutely certain and indisputable, ... How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality." (Albert Einstein)