Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[pauldude000]

Paul - I'd be sorry if this thread simply regressed to discussing the paper.  It's copiously discussed elsewhere.  But your analogy is good.  What we know is only that at certain frequencies one can get that required 'preferred oscillation' - or self resonance.  It's an intriguing waveform - sort of imposes itself on a background of chaotic oscillations which I believe is referred to as a parasitic oscillation.

The point is - if you read the introduction - that the 'effect' was required to prove a thesis.  The proposal is that current comprises magnetic flux and flux, in turn, comprises particles.  My own thesis on this proposes that these particles are magnetic dipoles - and they move to a condition of best balance.  The reason they remain hidden is based on this question.  How would we be able to find a particle if that particle were both smaller and faster than light?  In effect it would stay 'dark'.  I then propose that there can only be 3 dimensions of this - but that they share our own dimensions but not our own time frame.

But the point is that if, indeed, this current comes from the supply source AND from the circuit material - then it would be impossible NOT to exceed 1.  The surprise was to find that - in this rather exotic state of resonance - that one could actually return more energy to the battery than was initially supplied.  If you look towards the end of the paper you'll see that the waveform is, indeed, there. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

A post or two on the subject will not hurt.

That is just it.... Page 14 of 16 does show what they refer to as "sub harmonic modulation", but it really shows nothing. The harmonics in question are far from the 425.2 khz drive frequency. Unless the scope range is adjusted, no details about the individual harmonics in play are evident.

To determine the main resonates, the scope should be cycled upwards slowly, noting the frequency of each STRONG resonant as it comes into range, then look for a pattern.

If you have a scope and a working circuit, by all means try this. All things assumed actual, the resonation is PROBABLY the cause of the energy transformation. (note this is an educated guess) It is not an "effect", but a catalyst.

Paul Andrulis

[WilbyInebriated]

There is actually a simple test logically. A magnet on the face of the fridge defying the force of gravity should therefore lose its charge more rapidly than one with keepers, or than one in open air. The question is therefore upon what time scale would such need to be measured?

interesting. is a hall effect magnetometer going to be sensitive enough to 'match' the magnets?

[pauldude000]

interesting. is a hall effect magnetometer going to be sensitive enough to 'match' the magnets?

Unless someone has the budget for a SQUID or SERF it would have to do. :-)

Truthfully, it would (should) be sensitive enough with strong magnets to demonstrate the principle.

Paul Andrulis

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Paul, You're right to reference the various types of 'work' and that it all needs to be quantified.  And certainly it includes heat.  And I never realised that magnets lose their strength over time.   

Regarding this statement

I am going to speculate a little "working hypothesis" here.

Magnetism has its version of "resistance", which is reluctance. It has it's own version of impedance, capacitance, and conductance (magnetic permeability). It shares so many similarities with electricity that I think sometimes we assume it IS electricity subconsciously, in that we assume in all ways that it would react with said similarity.

And then this

If a battery is connected across a dead short, the energy is quickly used up and the charge usage/time ratio is high. The battery then quickly uses up its stored potential, and the charge is neutralized.

If a battery is connected across a resistor, current flow is impeded, slowing down the rate at which the charge can flow from the area of high potential to low. The charge usage/time ratio is comparatively low.

YET, in a magnet we see the EXACT opposite if the magnet is considered as a "battery". Where "charge" is resisted, energy ratio is highest as the magnet loses magnetic potential rapidly.  (Magnet without keepers).

I find these points intriguing.  I actually tried to measure the Ohmage of a permanent bar magnet and could not find any resistance.  I was told that the DMM that I was using applies a small fixed current flow to materials and the meaure of the resistance or Ohmage is the measure of that rate of current flow.  This means, presumably, that if a magnet has zero resistance then it would not impede the flow of current.  So.  A magnet at either side of a resistor in series with a battery supply - would also offer no added restriction to the rate of discharge from the battery - other than that offered from the resistor itself.

In a magnet with "conductors" placed upon both ends reluctance (resistance) is drastically reduced, giving us for all practicality a theoretical "short", yet it acts like an effective resistor is employed in the circuit as it reduces the power expenditure over time.

I never knew this.  Is it known that using magnets in this configuration actually increases the efficiency of a system?  Or have I misunderstood you?

What it breaks down to is logically simple.... A magnet is simply not an electrical battery, and assuming it to react like one is illogical. Magnetism is NOT electricity, though they share some traits and often tend to be found together, and can be directly transformed as types of energy back and forth.

Here I am not sure that your proof justifies this conclusion.  But I must say I agree with you in general.  The fact is that magnetism is not electricity.  But current flow definitely induces a magnetic field and that measure of that extruded field is, in turn, determined by the rate of current flow.   I think that they must, therefore, be related.  Perhaps it's in the angle of interaction.  Bear in mind if current actually flows from one terminal of a battery to another then it's still interacting at 180 degrees as does a magnet on magnet interaction.     

This is pure speculation but it could well be that magnetism is a localized environmental warping caused by the alignment of atoms by the direction of rotation of said atomes electron shells. An "excess" of the total number of electrons rotating in a general vector within the material. (I do know how nasty the implications of this could be if true.)

Indeed.  I absolutely agree that the valence condition of the atoms and the number of atoms inside that circuit material - determines the rate at which current can flow.  But this still does not therefore deny that current flow could still comprise magnetic flux or - as I propose - 'particulate matter' if indeed, flux itself comprises particles.

And theoretically - if flux did comprise particles and if these were being transferred through the circuit then there would be a far stronger case for total conservation of energy than is presently argued by our theorists.  I would have thought?

Just one point that may be relevant.  Just think about it.  An electric field invariably induces a magnetic field.  But a magnet on magnet interaction does NOT produce an electric field.  I was told - by one academic theorist that there is probably some electric interaction inside the body of the magnet itself.  But that's assumption.  It has NEVER been measured.  I see this as evidence that a magnetic field may be a primary field.  And, correspondingly then, the electromagnetic interaction is a secondary event.

Regards,
Rosemary

[pauldude000]

@Rosemary

I chose the words I used in those examples to demonstrate the similarity in concept between magnetism and electricity. Notice where I used "conductors" placed upon the ends of the magnets, I referred not to electrical conductors, but good conductors of magnetism.

I should have worded it differently I suppose.

Paul Andrulis