Selfrunning Waterpump-generator device runs 60 Watts lamp...

[JDHardy54]

Khabe,

Reading through all your comments, it sounds like you are really interested in helping me out by giving me advice.  I appreciate all your figures and all your input.  Steve, my partner, is also a very smart guy and has been in his field for thirty years.  Everyone who has worked with us on the project are also very smart people, all licensed engineers and electricians.  All together we have had about five people work with us, so it is always good to hear what you have to say and we take your comments under consideration.  I'm going out for the evening and I'll be getting back to the website this weekend after we fix the problem.  Next week sometime I will be having a couple of professionals come and document the machine.  I will also be making the new video.

James 

[aether22]

Hi James,

I think it sounds crazy..... "I believe the flux is 'radiant', that it rides on aetheric shockwaves released by the rewound generator"
  Yep, Nuts.  Even you admit that!

Unless you can prove a RADIANT flux which by definition is something going out "radiant"....and you need something coming in to get more of something plus once it goes through the holes, it is outside the coils!  no coupling!, Unless you can prove the existence of an aetheric ( what the hell is Aetheric?" shockwave in this configuration...........Yep sounds crazy to me.

Please post a working circuit that will demonstrate radiant flux (and instrumentation to indicate it is "radiant") in a multilayer iron core generator and demonstrate an aetheric shockwave (camera) and show in operation!  We don't need theories, we need working devices!
Theories and words are cheap!

Well there is a lot of evidence that something can occur which causes the equivalent of flux being projected or pulled which means it may by copied, teleported, amplified etc...
But the model that makes the most sense if in fact the projecting and pulling of flux, I used the term radiant in the hopes that those who accept popular theories would accept it, but it is not a term/theory I would prefer.

In fact I hate theories, only evidence and observation.

There is much evidence for flux being projected or pulled, and we'll focus on magnetic flux here (though it might not be purely true that it is magnetic flux).

When considering evidence for this kind of thing you have to accept that to make advances beyond what is well established you must consider data which has not been peer reviewed, you will actually have to remove your prejudices as to what is and is not possible and weight the evidence on it's own merits, and the similarity is has to other data.

There are a few different types of evidence for this, first there is projection of static magnetic fields.
Then there is radio wave.
Then there is free energy.
and then there is subtle.
and finally a few that don't fit in any of the above.

Let's first to start with the last one, subtle.
This is in some ways the weakest because it is the most removed, however I believe it give a good picture of what can occur between distant bodies.

You have no doubt heard that one twin can sometimes feel a pain when the other is injured.
The Russians did an experiment where they took i think it was the mother rabbit down on a sub and on land one by one killed it's babies, the vitals of the mother rabbit responded.
i have heard that if you take a crystal and break it in 2 and monitor one half, by smashing the other half at a distance the piece being monitored reacts.

There is much much more evidence of this obviously but those 3 will do, it seems that somehow by having 2 things that are tuned to each other, I suppose Keely would have said 'in sympathetic vibration' you can transfer effects, this also relates directly to radionics, the claim that rays/streams can transfer an energy or effect.

I went to a lecture where a noble prize wining scientist (for work in QCD) told us how they had proven that all matter was made of vibrations/vorticies in the fluid void, and it truly was impressive the level of evidence, at the end I even asked him if the void could be termed aether and he agreed. (it fit perfectly with my own evidence based model of the aether)
Radionics I have no doubt is just tuning into the aetheric disturbance created by matter which establishes a stream of aether/void, and magnetism is of course just a disturbance in the aether so why would it not follow along? (Torsion physics is clearly the same thing)

Pavilta was indeed able to gather such magnetic like forces in special devices and project it.
Of course there is much evidence and science in all of what I have mentioned above but none of it will be accepted by skeptic magazine any time soon.

Ok, now let's move on to evidence of projection of steady magnetic fields.

First I'll quote an account:

"In another experiment, a magnetic torsion beam was suspended and balanced at its center. A strong magnet is then placed on a table with one pole extended toward the suspended torsion beam. After many oscillations the beam would be attracted to the opposite magnetic pole of the magnet on the table. Donald Roth reports that after five days the magnet can be removed at considerable distance from the balanced torsion beam but that the beam will still be attracted as though the magnet was still there. This experiment should be duplicated by some of the NEN readers. If the experiment is repeatable, then this evidence could be used to claim that the aether can exhibit some type of memory or inertia for magnetic fields. The discovery of the Aspden Effect (see NEN, Feb. 1995, vol 2, no 10, p 1ff) or rotational magnetic inertia and this effect observed by Roth may have some common explanation. NEN readers: Do you have a good explanation? Is this evidence for an aether?"

And another from: http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/exper.html

"I was building a electromagnet and It was starting to look good. I had put a switch on it to divert the power at my will. Also, i had added a minutere tesla coil to the design for optimal power. when i hooked it up to a 9 volt battery and i held up the screwdriver which i had wrapped the wire around to magnatise. i was able to take my other hand and metal objects would attract to it as if my hand were a magnet.
Anonymous
USA - Monday, January 25, 1999 at 03:55:25 (PST) "

So here are 2 cases of static magnetic fields being projected, and while one is better presented we may choose to accept both as possibly true.

A third is found in the magnetic beamer of Boyd Bushman, he was able to project a magnetic field I forget but over 20 feet at least with his beamer, it was also found to have other interesting qualities such as effecting electrical discharge length, and slow acceleration toward the earth, interesting that magnets have in these same basic orientations been reported to have those 2 effect, including an effect reported by Stiffler.

Though the 3 above are the only pieces of evidence I can find for static magnetic field projection, I am aware of another report that IIRC was from a list member of vortex-l (Bill Beaty's list), it was of feeling a force (vibration) from a bifilar coil energized with AC in a magnet held in line, the effect could be felt on the magnet at very significant distances when perfectly inline with the center of the coil.

Actually I forgot, there are also 3-4 cases of the earths magnetic field being redirected/diverted by the use of in most cases non-magnetic materials, for instance a N pole at the top of a glass tetrahedron (there are several very similar cases) but this is a little different but is likely related.

There are a great number of discoveries in radio transmission that verify my claim very very well, however the number is too great to list here
However these include observations that ground radio works and that it acts like a stream, searching 'Borderlands' and 'ground radio' will bring up a wealth on info for instance, the qualities are identical to what would be expected based on an aether stream carrying radio signals and defy explanation by any other means.

Then there are a large number of radio antennas, some can receive inside a metal enclosure (a Faraday cage) and some can transmit from such an enclosure also.
They can receive radio signals at staggering strengths and make no conventional electrical sense (although they make ample aetheric sense).

Going into detail with these devices would easily make the message far too large but I consider this to be the most obvious and well proven evidence that you can pull in fields.

Now we get to the real purpose of this message, Free Energy!

After making the above connections, I took a look at Free Energy devices to see if this made any sense, and my conclusion was that it is the only thing that makes really any sense.
We know that to induce electrical energy you need a field, an electric field to induce current, no other means really seems likely.

Let's start off close to home, Stiffler can have a scanning coil and find that he will get a constant induction of energy into it without reduction, until at a given distance it goes to zero.
Of course Stifflers view of this is not that the ferrite is producing a uniform field around it's self without and drop off over distance, nor does he propose that there is a connection between the ferrite and scanning coil as I do, rather he believes that the ferrite effects space in a bubble form and that the scanning coil pulls energy from space although I am not sure if he can answer why it needs a given orientation between the 2 coils.


Ok, I'm going to finish it right there for now, the investment of time to probably be ignored is too great and I have things I want to do, the short version though is that this explanation makes stunning sense when FE devices are studied, the best for making it clear would be Kipper and Hermann Plauson but if you look at the number of devices that have a loose coupling transformer, or an unsheilded motor.generator or buzzer it is overwhelming.

And to answer your question, the 'coupling' is in one direction only, that's why it is OU.
And it's not coupling to the coils (they put a force/emf back on the rotor/whatever due to the proximity), it is the external circuitry that absorbs the flux and though it works better of coiled it does not need to be.
The flux source (preferably ferromagnetic) projects flux which is sucked into the (preferably not ferromagnetic) pickup circuitry, there is no mutual coupling, however a highly unidirectional 'coupling' does exist.

I daily try and think of an alternative, but really there are only 2 effective options (besides an answer that adds up to something pretty much the same), either I'm right, or there are many people who have lied and an astronomical coincidence has taken place.
Recognize that if you look at these effects they DON'T make conventional sense, these things are said to be impossible and that is for a damn good reason, but when they do happen things turn quite anomalous and in many ways. (look at the anomalies in a SEC for instance)

Just as you shared the very very true insight into replication of this type of tech 'Don't try to fix it'.

Let me offer 'Don't assume that highly unconventional things are following conventional physics'.

Anomalies swarm around these devices and it is just as likely you will find 1 anomaly as 5. (FE & AG pop up in the same devices)
My favorite example I keep making is the GEET which has over 200 'impossibilities' noted, it even fogs film.

I do intend on finishing this at some point later.

You are arguing that conventional physics doesn't support what I am saying and that my claim is crazy sounding, but so are the reported anomalies, and conventional physics can't explain any of this.
This is not a theory, this does not make sense to me, rather it is an observation with at least 50 pieces of evidence all saying the same thing and that is all I listen to since it has never put me wrong yet.

As for a circuit, I could point to many devices that have bee made and found to work and even been successfully replicated, however as with all of this it is all in the details, I could not replicate the effects you or Stiffler got with the Fluro tubes even with your assistance.

[k4zep]

Well there is a lot of evidence that something can occur which causes the equivalent of flux being projected or pulled which means it may by copied, teleported, amplified etc...
But the model that makes the most sense if in fact the projecting and pulling of flux, I used the term radiant in the hopes that those who accept popular theories would accept it, but it is not a term/theory I would prefer.

In fact I hate theories, only evidence and observation.

There is much evidence for flux being projected or pulled, and we'll focus on magnetic flux here (though it might not be purely true that it is magnetic flux).

When considering evidence for this kind of thing you have to accept that to make advances beyond what is well established you must consider data which has not been peer reviewed, you will actually have to remove your prejudices as to what is and is not possible and weight the evidence on it's own merits, and the similarity is has to other data.

There are a few different types of evidence for this, first there is projection of static magnetic fields.
Then there is radio wave.
Then there is free energy.
and then there is subtle.
and finally a few that don't fit in any of the above.

Let's first to start with the last one, subtle.
This is in some ways the weakest because it is the most removed, however I believe it give a good picture of what can occur between distant bodies.

You have no doubt heard that one twin can sometimes feel a pain when the other is injured.
The Russians did an experiment where they took i think it was the mother rabbit down on a sub and on land one by one killed it's babies, the vitals of the mother rabbit responded.
i have heard that if you take a crystal and break it in 2 and monitor one half, by smashing the other half at a distance the piece being monitored reacts.

There is much much more evidence of this obviously but those 3 will do, it seems that somehow by having 2 things that are tuned to each other, I suppose Keely would have said 'in sympathetic vibration' you can transfer effects, this also relates directly to radionics, the claim that rays/streams can transfer an energy or effect.

I went to a lecture where a noble prize wining scientist (for work in QCD) told us how they had proven that all matter was made of vibrations/vorticies in the fluid void, and it truly was impressive the level of evidence, at the end I even asked him if the void could be termed aether and he agreed. (it fit perfectly with my own evidence based model of the aether)
Radionics I have no doubt is just tuning into the aetheric disturbance created by matter which establishes a stream of aether/void, and magnetism is of course just a disturbance in the aether so why would it not follow along? (Torsion physics is clearly the same thing)

Pavilta was indeed able to gather such magnetic like forces in special devices and project it.
Of course there is much evidence and science in all of what I have mentioned above but none of it will be accepted by skeptic magazine any time soon.

Ok, now let's move on to evidence of projection of steady magnetic fields.

First I'll quote an account:

"In another experiment, a magnetic torsion beam was suspended and balanced at its center. A strong magnet is then placed on a table with one pole extended toward the suspended torsion beam. After many oscillations the beam would be attracted to the opposite magnetic pole of the magnet on the table. Donald Roth reports that after five days the magnet can be removed at considerable distance from the balanced torsion beam but that the beam will still be attracted as though the magnet was still there. This experiment should be duplicated by some of the NEN readers. If the experiment is repeatable, then this evidence could be used to claim that the aether can exhibit some type of memory or inertia for magnetic fields. The discovery of the Aspden Effect (see NEN, Feb. 1995, vol 2, no 10, p 1ff) or rotational magnetic inertia and this effect observed by Roth may have some common explanation. NEN readers: Do you have a good explanation? Is this evidence for an aether?"

And another from: http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/exper.html

"I was building a electromagnet and It was starting to look good. I had put a switch on it to divert the power at my will. Also, i had added a minutere tesla coil to the design for optimal power. when i hooked it up to a 9 volt battery and i held up the screwdriver which i had wrapped the wire around to magnatise. i was able to take my other hand and metal objects would attract to it as if my hand were a magnet.
Anonymous
USA - Monday, January 25, 1999 at 03:55:25 (PST) "

So here are 2 cases of static magnetic fields being projected, and while one is better presented we may choose to accept both as possibly true.

A third is found in the magnetic beamer of Boyd Bushman, he was able to project a magnetic field I forget but over 20 feet at least with his beamer, it was also found to have other interesting qualities such as effecting electrical discharge length, and slow acceleration toward the earth, interesting that magnets have in these same basic orientations been reported to have those 2 effect, including an effect reported by Stiffler.

Though the 3 above are the only pieces of evidence I can find for static magnetic field projection, I am aware of another report that IIRC was from a list member of vortex-l (Bill Beaty's list), it was of feeling a force (vibration) from a bifilar coil energized with AC in a magnet held in line, the effect could be felt on the magnet at very significant distances when perfectly inline with the center of the coil.

Actually I forgot, there are also 3-4 cases of the earths magnetic field being redirected/diverted by the use of in most cases non-magnetic materials, for instance a N pole at the top of a glass tetrahedron (there are several very similar cases) but this is a little different but is likely related.

There are a great number of discoveries in radio transmission that verify my claim very very well, however the number is too great to list here
However these include observations that ground radio works and that it acts like a stream, searching 'Borderlands' and 'ground radio' will bring up a wealth on info for instance, the qualities are identical to what would be expected based on an aether stream carrying radio signals and defy explanation by any other means.

Then there are a large number of radio antennas, some can receive inside a metal enclosure (a Faraday cage) and some can transmit from such an enclosure also.
They can receive radio signals at staggering strengths and make no conventional electrical sense (although they make ample aetheric sense).

Going into detail with these devices would easily make the message far too large but I consider this to be the most obvious and well proven evidence that you can pull in fields.

Now we get to the real purpose of this message, Free Energy!

After making the above connections, I took a look at Free Energy devices to see if this made any sense, and my conclusion was that it is the only thing that makes really any sense.
We know that to induce electrical energy you need a field, an electric field to induce current, no other means really seems likely.

Let's start off close to home, Stiffler can have a scanning coil and find that he will get a constant induction of energy into it without reduction, until at a given distance it goes to zero.
Of course Stifflers view of this is not that the ferrite is producing a uniform field around it's self without and drop off over distance, nor does he propose that there is a connection between the ferrite and scanning coil as I do, rather he believes that the ferrite effects space in a bubble form and that the scanning coil pulls energy from space although I am not sure if he can answer why it needs a given orientation between the 2 coils.


Ok, I'm going to finish it right there for now, the investment of time to probably be ignored is too great and I have things I want to do, the short version though is that this explanation makes stunning sense when FE devices are studied, the best for making it clear would be Kipper and Hermann Plauson but if you look at the number of devices that have a loose coupling transformer, or an unsheilded motor.generator or buzzer it is overwhelming.

And to answer your question, the 'coupling' is in one direction only, that's why it is OU.
And it's not coupling to the coils (they put a force/emf back on the rotor/whatever due to the proximity), it is the external circuitry that absorbs the flux and though it works better of coiled it does not need to be.
The flux source (preferably ferromagnetic) projects flux which is sucked into the (preferably not ferromagnetic) pickup circuitry, there is no mutual coupling, however a highly unidirectional 'coupling' does exist.

I daily try and think of an alternative, but really there are only 2 effective options (besides an answer that adds up to something pretty much the same), either I'm right, or there are many people who have lied and an astronomical coincidence has taken place.
Recognize that if you look at these effects they DON'T make conventional sense, these things are said to be impossible and that is for a damn good reason, but when they do happen things turn quite anomalous and in many ways. (look at the anomalies in a SEC for instance)

Just as you shared the very very true insight into replication of this type of tech 'Don't try to fix it'.

Let me offer 'Don't assume that highly unconventional things are following conventional physics'.

Anomalies swarm around these devices and it is just as likely you will find 1 anomaly as 5. (FE & AG pop up in the same devices)
My favorite example I keep making is the GEET which has over 200 'impossibilities' noted, it even fogs film.

I do intend on finishing this at some point later.

You are arguing that conventional physics doesn't support what I am saying and that my claim is crazy sounding, but so are the reported anomalies, and conventional physics can't explain any of this.
This is not a theory, this does not make sense to me, rather it is an observation with at least 50 pieces of evidence all saying the same thing and that is all I listen to since it has never put me wrong yet.

As for a circuit, I could point to many devices that have bee made and found to work and even been successfully replicated, however as with all of this it is all in the details, I could not replicate the effects you or Stiffler got with the Fluro tubes even with your assistance.

Hi James,

Wow, I stand Awe.  You obviously don't need my assistance in any way. 

Ben

[aether22]

Hi James,

Wow, I stand Awe.  You obviously don't need my assistance in any way. 

Ben

Well my name isn't James, it's John.
And I assume though I could be wrong that your reply is facetious?

>>Please post a working circuit that will demonstrate radiant flux (and instrumentation to indicate it is "radiant") in a multilayer iron core generator

No iron core is required, this effect works poorly in closed magnetic circuits if at all.
The effect is between somewhat open magnetic circuits and external wiring which can if given the right conditions pull this kind of released flux in. (light bulbs, positively charged wire, multi strand wire, carbon rods are or seem to be better candidates than normal wiring)

>and demonstrate an aetheric shockwave (camera)

Stiffler demoed an electron-aether shockwave in his lab, it set off weather alarms, literally.
His experiments were based on my correlations or 'theories' regarding Hiddink et al.
Did I just get lucky there and with the carbon rod?
I have correlated all up 8 examples (6 listed in the Hiddink thread) of electrons of a relatively low voltage moving through the air all with the same unusual magnetic/electric current config and another 3 with a very similar config with xrays and ozone, and I can find only 1 instance of this config in a device where this effect is not found. (SM's TPU)

However I am not aware of any way to take a photo of an aetheric shockwave, it was described by Tesla and many have found it.

>We don't need theories, we need working devices!  Theories and words are cheap!

Agreed, I have never listened to anyones theory and have just focused on the evidence where ever it leads.
Understanding the difference between a theory and an evidence based conclusion is tricky when it comes to evaluating someone elses work, but the difference is that the theory is just an idea and could be wrong (most are).
Where a solid image based on evidence require a huge improbability and or deception to have occurred.

It makes sense to see what threads, correlations, clues may be gained by studying this technology.
If your reaction was because you felt the evidence I presented was poor then that would be because I only presented a fraction of it.

So IMO to get anywhere we need to understand these working devices (not yet another device that some can and some can't kinda make work), now naturally if you take a far less liberal view of the evidence and if you assume it was almost certainly all fake then you would need far more evidence to tip you over into accepting the correlation as being valid (I may have that much but it is more than can be covered in a message or 3), but if you are more perceptive than dismissive you'll see I've got a point.


Anyway I was hoping that James would reply to my inquiry but it seems the closest I am going to get is Ben calling me James, oh well.

[Pirate88179]

@ All:

This is my 2 cents although no one asked me. (They rarely do these days)

First, welcome James.  I applaud and appreciate your efforts as well as the fact you are sharing them with us.  I have read through the posts and I know the inefficiency of the paddle wheel has been discussed.  My original thought when I first saw your first video was why you didn't use an enclosed impeller system to capture all of the water energy that you have "paid" for?  Something like a small version of a jet ski drive or a small turbocharger connected with an input pipe.  Every drop of water that does not contact a paddle is wasted energy that has already been paid for with power.

I have no idea why this works as you now have it.  It shouldn't.  I can clearly see that you went to a lot of trouble to build this device, much more trouble than anyone would just to post a fake youtube video, so I have ruled that out.  As others have also mentioned, I wonder if the caps (are they super capacitors?) are acting like batteries?  If so, the device would not self run very long.  Possibly there is something else going on that has been overlooked by us?  By this I mean something inherent in the diameters of your pulleys, the load on the generator, and the volume of the pump possibly hitting a resonance "sweet spot"?  I will continue to follow your efforts and hope that you continue to share your results with us.  Best of luck to you.  This is fascinating.

@ Stefan:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  Have you thought about possibly interviewing James?  He seems like a decent guy and I'll bet he would talk to you and you could post it on the forum.  Thank you.

Bill