The Young Effect, my gift to the free energy movement!

[tinu]

THE BUZZ    You certainly have the ability to make even the most complicated  seem so simple 
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and knowledge
       Chet

Here is an even simpler (and true) explanation: “The guy with the round water tank” is an impostor.

[tinu]

@Tinu


        The magnifying glass bends the emwaves we call light and focuses them on a small field.  Without the MAGNIFICATION of the diffused emwave energy you wouldnt be able to start your skin ablase or heatup a leaf to combustion state.  The solar people use parabolic disks to MAGNIFY the solar emwave energy to heat things up.  The guy with the resonating center element creates pressure waves just like the little shrimp that creates cavitation of the fluid which focuses the wave energy into spots and then the water gets hot enough in those spots to do things like burn nitrogen and oxygen and other fun stuff that wouldnt happen unless that spot got real hot.  The clicking noise and the guys pressure waves do the same thing .Magnifying diffuse energy distribution surrounding a mass field to concentrated energy distribution that results in changing energy in that field from a diffused state to a concentrated state which we can use to do work.  This magnification of energy does not need to use more energy than it concentrates.  How simple can I possibly explain it .   You take energy from all over the place and put it in one tiny place and things start to heat up.  If you can't figure that out time to go.

@sparks,

Really, there is not need to explain it. At least not to me.
But please don’t say any longer to “use a magnifying glass to magnify the energy from the sun” but “use a magnifying glass to FOCUS the energy from the sun”. There is a huge difference between the two verbs; energy is not magnified at all but barely concentrated/focused. Nothing is ‘magnified’ except maybe what was implied by my previously above-posted joke.

Cheers,
Tinu

[alan]

Alan, I always thought that we measure cap "energy" in joules since it represents the amount of energy or work that can be done. Second order? Could you define that term for me. You are clearly intelligent and want to discuss it more.

Hey thebuzz,
sorry for the delay
about pecns vid's, I need to rewatch them, I watched them in passive mode.

I'll give it a shot:
multiple order equations, basic of calculus, let me give you an example:
basic unit x position, the first time derivative of position, dx/dt, is velocity v, second derivative of position (is first derivative of velocity), d^2x/dt^2 (or dv/dt), is acceleration.
An equation consisting of velocity is a first order equation, one that includes acceleration is a second order eqn, for example x = startpos+vt+0.5at^2
Same with a circuit consisting of a coil and cap. A cap is a first order component, because its voltage is related to dq/dt (= current), an inductor is a second order component, because its v. is related to the second derivative of charge, or the first of current (changing current), d^2q/dt^2 (di/dt). got it?

Now for the energy in a cap:
Like you said, its energy equals what it can do for work, that is correct. It also equals the work done to charge it.
E = V * all Q's to the cap = integral (V * dq), which can be extended to 0.5CV^2: q = V*C -> V=q/C -> subst. V with q/C -> E = integral(q/C * dq) -> E = int(0.5 q^2 / C) -> E = 0.5*(C^2+V^2) / C -> 0.5C*V^2. (I gess most know this already)
But, the energy depends on the voltage, but does a changing voltage and changerate have effect on charge?
lets call dv/dt = W and d^2v/dt^2 = X
then energy is: E = int(V*dq) + int(W * dq dt) + int(X * dq dt dt)
or the force of voltage on a charge:
F = V*q , if that becomes a second order of voltage over time, then it becomes: F = V*q + W*q*t + 0.5*X*q*t^2

Just the basics of my idea, not completed yet 

[alan]

You are looking at a tiny fusion and that is a free energy device that converts mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass. Cavitation is required to extract the electrons in order for that to occur.

That is exactly what Stan Meyer said: extract the electrons from the gases before ignition, to convert the mass to energy.

[Koen1]

@Sparks: Don't you see that you can have the best magnifying glass ever,
but without light input there will still be zero effect?
That's one of the things I thought I had indicated but perhaps I wasn't clear.
Yes, to use your magnifying glass example, it can concentrate incident
light into a point of much higher energy density.
But that is not OU.
That is taking the energy already present and concentrating it in a much
smaller area.

And yes, we can do that by using concave mirrors and such.
But it's still no OU. Yes, it can be energy we aren't inputting
directly ourselves, just like the large concave mirrors the ancient
Greeks used to set fire to the Persian ships used solar power,
normal sunlight, concentrated into small zones on the wooden
ship hulls and the sails.
Focusing and concentrating sunlight or any other natural radiation
is not technically over unity, obviously.

And I fail to see the connection between simple lens/mirror based
"refractive" magnification, and the plasma-mediated transmutation
of elements as Buzz seems to be suggesting.
Or at least, seemed to be suggesting, before he rocked up
with the Thrapp stuff. Thrapp doesn't want us to build that thing,
he wants us to send him tons of money. If he really wanted to
share free energy with the world he would simply explain in a video
how to build one. But he doesn't. He only has videos intended to
lure people in. Never gives any info unless you pay him, and I have
heard that even when you do that he does not give any usefull info,
just a lot of vague remarks and suggestive statements about possible
future developments. But no plans, no actual devices that you get.
At least, that's what I was told by people who claim to have sent
him money.

You got other info, Buzz?