Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The qualifications of your speaking shall be determined solely upon the logic employed. Please feel free to contribute despite troll interruption.

I have to deal with autism on a daily basis, as my son is autistic. It is amazing how his fits resemble the attitudes of many supposedly intelligent individuals. If anyone is trying to start a fight (flame you), then follow my dear departed mothers advice..... Let them stick their heads up their proverbial rears and fight for air. :-)

If any flaming becomes a problem, I will approach Harti myself about it, as no-one deserves to live under a state of constant attack, verbal or otherwise.

Paul Andrulis

LOL  I approve your mother's sentiments and rather expected this would be your overall response.  Thanks Paul.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[pauldude000]

----
(1)

If you wish to use the thermodynamic principle of work, then you need a "Transfer" of energy.  To go simple, I ask this question.  "Does a wire carrying current do work?" or magnetically speaking, does the core of a transformer do work?

See where I am having trouble?  IF the answer is "Yes", then the definition of work becomes useless for certain applications.  I'm NOT talking about the heat from the wire, here, as that IS a transfer, but to just basic flow with no resistance, like gravity!  This is where my problem comes in.  The resistance of the wire is what produces the work, and this is also where "Power" is lost in the Transfer.  There are better ways to say this, but I'm giving a basic try before gathering too much data.

--------
(2)

(There's a can of worms for you.  Is the creation of a negative gravity field opposing, say, the earth's, the same as no gravity at all, or would the atheric density be affected?  For later discussion.  Just a thought provoker...)

----------
(3)

One last thing, before I go educate myself further so I can be a little more logical, If the magnet were transferring energy, wouldn't that require the magnet to weaken over time?  Many commercial magnets are even shipped with "Keepers" to prevent such loss by completing the flow circuit.  If the "Flow" were to cause "Transfer", or in this case "Loss" then the addition of the keeper would make the magnet lose More strength, rather than "Keep" the force within the magnet.  All I'm saying there is, the "Keeper" would or should be caller a "Loser", as continual flow would reduce it's energy content.

I had to break these down into point to keep everything straight in my own mind.

Point 1.

"Does a wire carrying current or the core of a transformer do work?"

"Losses", or non-useful work are still work. I2R loss in a conductor and hysteresis loss in a transformer core DO count as work, and produce specific and measurable amount of heat. The problem comes when trying to judge a system component outside of the system.

Let us apply this logically towards figuring COP for a simple electrical system. An oscillating RF signal of known power is applied across a circuit containing a mosfet and a step up transformer. The experimenter measures the power across the output leads of the transformer and then figures COP, of say .2.

Is COP truly .2?

Or, in disregarding the fact that the heat-sink for the mosfet is capable of boiling water. The fact that his shoddy transformer is hot enough to burn windings and the lead wires are starting to smoke, by the laws of thermodynamics does he not have to include the excess heat for a true measurement of COP?

How about the RF signal which the lossy transformer is dumping out into the environment which is making his wife's radio scream 25 feet away?

TRUE COP requires the accurate measurement of ALL power exiting a system, not merely the "usable" part.

Does not stating otherwise claim energy is being destroyed? (When in facts it is actively being transformed?)

You see the problem here.

-----------

Point 2....

You really tempt me Loner.... Tempting tempting but no go! :-)

For cryptic reasons you well understand, I think I will refrain from letting gravity/magnetism enter too deep into this conversation. To say interesting is an understatement though.

--------------

Point 3.

All permanent magnets DO weaken over time. Some a short time span in relation to a human life, others NOT so short of a time span. However, yes they do lose magnetic strength over time (entropy does apply.).

This is a very interesting point though. You ask a VERY good question on why a magnet retains the field using "keepers" longer than without. Very good point indeed.

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.

Please bear with me a moment.

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).

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.

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.

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.)

We assume and assert much concerning magnetism, but what we really know is quite little and tends to be logical speculation anyway as to it's root cause.

Now, if a magnetic field is viewed of as a substance in motion, and not at static charge at rest like a battery, then the "keeper" problem resolves itself.  Frictional resistance applied to motion uses MORE energy to sustain a particular motion than when friction is reduced.
 
What we are seeing with the keeper problem is then viewable as an electric charge in motion, with open air losses being equivalent in concept to I2R losses, or pwoer wasted due to the conductance of the conductible material.

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?

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

The data's freely available - all over the place Paul.  Here's the link that I gave to Loner.  Nothing's been patented.  On the contrary - we all went to some trouble to ensure that it wasn't.  Be rather difficult even if I'd wanted to.  The fact is that we simply use a switching circuit and return rather more energy back to the battery than was dissipated at the load.  Right now we're developing an application on higher wattages. 

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Edited to amend the 'quote'

Thank you Rosemary. I have tons of mosfets gathering dust, and a scope I am willing to use.

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

LOL  I approve your mother's sentiments and rather expected this would be your overall response.  Thanks Paul.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I learned a long time ago not to follow others mistakes..... The people performing the tests "messed up".

Bear with me, please, as this is not negative.

I read the paper with a quick once over, then noted the tests they were using trying to achieve a known "effect" of a specified waveform. These boys aren't too bright.

If you know the waveform, you no longer need to reproduce an "effect", you INDUCE the effect.

Basically inject the waveform as the control for the mosfet to force the effect, not meddle constantly to try to enable the effect into being.

Let me put this as an analogy. I could ring the liberty bell by tapping it over and over with a pencil hoping to find the right frequency of taps to provide it's self resonant Q frequency.... or I can hit it with a tuning fork of that particular frequency an let the bell do the rest.

I might have to reproduce this test myself. It would help to know what "waveform" they speak of, as a graphic is not included.

Edit ADDED:

Before I make this sound overly simplistic, let me clarify.

One of the various harmonics is liable to induce the rest. Inject single or double harmonics until you know the exact combination of this particular lock. Reproduction after that point is quite simple, as you know both the necessary components and the stimulative resonant frequencies..

The fact that they were searching for a "harmonic" automatically means resonance was involved. Q will quite liably destroy coimponents, but slightly off Q should give results.

For others reading, I have not enough data to automatically state that the paper or theory is correct.... NEITHER do I have enough data to state it as incorrect. One witness FOR the concept is that some authors of said paper are electrical engineers, and members of IEEE.

IEEE refusing the paper is a matter of peer review, and any notion of perpetual motion kills papers. IE personal preference could have played a large role, not relevance or accuracy.

Paul Andrulis

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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