http://www.dlinevitch.narod.ru/Centrifuga.pdf
I hope that link works - this is a document that is getting more difficult to find. It's in Russian, so online translation will be lumpy.
Anyhow, Once Upon A Time a Russian engineer was working on greenhouse pump that broke loose and started violently vibrating. He analysed the situation with Heavy Math and some meters and concluded that the Vibration Was Greater THAN THE INPUT POWER! He went on to patent a device that runs off centrifugal force. Physics instructor Phillip Kanarev noticed this stuff and analysed it carefully Using Really Deep Math - and built his own versions of this centrifugal power source device.
That's the story as I understand it - and there are a lot of references here you can Google (Linevich, Kanarev, etc.) The Interesting Thing About This Is that here we have both Heavy Mathematics and Physics AND Solid Experimental Results being claimed. Unlike much else, this doesn't look like anything amateurish. Feel free to comment, especially if you feel otherwise. Good Luck with all the Russian.
Quote from: Eighthman on April 02, 2016, 01:38:42 PM
http://www.dlinevitch.narod.ru/Centrifuga.pdf (http://www.dlinevitch.narod.ru/Centrifuga.pdf)
I hope that link works - this is a document that is getting more difficult to find. It's in Russian, so online translation will be lumpy.
Anyhow, Once Upon A Time a Russian engineer was working on greenhouse pump that broke loose and started violently vibrating. He analysed the situation with Heavy Math and some meters and concluded that the Vibration Was Greater THAN THE INPUT POWER! He went on to patent a device that runs off centrifugal force. Physics instructor Phillip Kanarev noticed this stuff and analysed it carefully Using Really Deep Math - and built his own versions of this centrifugal power source device.
That's the story as I understand it - and there are a lot of references here you can Google (Linevich, Kanarev, etc.) The Interesting Thing About This Is that here we have both Heavy Mathematics and Physics AND Solid Experimental Results being claimed. Unlike much else, this doesn't look like anything amateurish. Feel free to comment, especially if you feel otherwise. Good Luck with all the Russian.
What is heavy math and deep math? It would seem to me that just regular math could properly analyze any vibratory system and account for the input/output energy.
Am I wrong here?
Bill
A fair point, it's just relative but the papers show a care for measurement and deriving theories that you don't see in most discussions of overunity or free energy. I just want to know if it's real.
Oh, and I want to add that IMHO the 'place to look for free energy' might be in pulses and transients. I say that because steady easy to measure stuff might be completely covered by lots of Ph.D types confirming the laws of thermodynamics.
However, analyzing pulses and transient phenomena might yield some loopholes or things overlooked.
OK I am interested in this topic and have made a machine to test power from centrifugal force.
I am working on the assumption that this is not a scam and that his test numbers are correct so I don't want to get into a big fight about testing methodology etc etc.I used a browser translation to translate the pdf in the first post of this thread and then went through the paper paragraph by paragraph with another translator and compared the two translations to try and get a handle on exactly what linevitch is saying and I think I have a reasonably clear translation.
However I cannot see how the retardation of the sprocket 5 is not reflected back to the motor input.
In my own crude experiments in the photo below. I can confirm that when the output end is free or fixed completely the input energy is virtually the same but if the output end moves but is retarded from free movement then the motor loads down and draws more current. Just as Linevitch states in the paper.
Can someone explain to me the below.
In part1.jpg
When the axis of rotation of the weight is fixed the weight follows a circular path. When the axis of rotation of the weight is not fixed the weight follows an oval path. The weight has to travel further through space on the oval path than it does on the circular path in the same time if the RPM is constant. Therefore the weight has to accellerate which mus draw more current from the motor.
In the linevitch system the weights must also travel on an almost oval path when driving a load. I think he addresses this when
He states on page 12
"In this case the angular velocity Ω around the Z axis is considerably less than ω, Ω «ω, so we do not consider it."[/font]
Can someone explain why it should not be considered.[/size]
Thanks[/size]
[/font]
|
Below is the european patent which may help
There is a loophole, but its extremely hard to engineer around it to to the speed of the clutch and durability issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSG1nroy_WM
Dont mistake the Karanev/linevich device.
With the explanation of why the Chalkalis device is an overunity device, by Kanarev
This is a quote from Linevich's paper on centrifugal force:
"Currently, there is not a complete theoretical description of the operation of devices using the proposed method of energy conversion. There is still a requirement for specialists to solve this problem."
In other words, he can make the overunity device work but cannot explain why it does so. If anyone tries to replicate it, I believe they must follow his structure to be successful.
24.04.2008
https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/alternative-loesung-zur-energiegewinnung-1003340445 (https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/alternative-loesung-zur-energiegewinnung-1003340445)
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.xing.com%2Fcommunities%2Fposts%2Falternative-loesung-zur-energiegewinnung-1003340445&edit-text= (https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.xing.com%2Fcommunities%2Fposts%2Falternative-loesung-zur-energiegewinnung-1003340445&edit-text=)
http://www.unternehmen24.at/Firmeninformationen/AUT/1715011
This just struck me.....
http://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/30.htm
If the Linevich device is real, how come nobody ever observed this effect of being able to carefully extract power from a spinning rotor?
Answer: Maybe Aspden did !! If re-spinning a rotor can be done with far less energy inputted (as in stop -restart) then perhaps a rotor could be briefly slowed and then recover by itself - or be brought up to speed with far less power inputted.
I suggest a search for other inventors who claimed overunity from spinning rotors. See if there is a pattern that agrees with what Linevich claims.
That theory is just internet gobblegook. That link is the only place where this theory is talked about, said to exist.
The linevich has its own unique theory, wich is different than the aspden effect.
Yeah, sure....whatever you say:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19690-momentum-inertia-aspden-effect.html
This also sounds interesting, maybe supportive:
http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Gyroscopic_Anomalies
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/TheMorganExperiment.pdf
The above references yet another reported rotational anomaly. Again, if the Linevich device is a true overunity device, them we should expect that someone, somewhere has observed supporting anomalies about gyroscopic rotation......and THAT seems to be the case.
The overwhelmingly dominant view of energy conservation as never being violated exists for a good reason. If we can find an exception, then it's going to something strange, that has been overlooked. Hence, our presence here.
You bring some interesting studies.
But is there even time now or should we store food instead?
If both the Linevich device and the Aspden effect are real............then, it should be possible to remove energy from a spinning rotor during a fraction of its rotation and then use LESS energy in pulses to maintain that rotation.
So, the two observations appear consistent - and useful. Was this seeming 'fact' observed by anyone else - Bedini, maybe - using a pulse motor with a rotor?
Quote from: Eighthman on July 24, 2016, 01:25:54 PM
If both the Linevich device and the Aspden effect are real............then, it should be possible to remove energy from a spinning rotor during a fraction of its rotation and then use LESS energy in pulses to maintain that rotation.
So, the two observations appear consistent - and useful. Was this seeming 'fact' observed by anyone else - Bedini, maybe - using a pulse motor with a rotor?
You asked: "Was this seeming 'fact' observed by anyone else - Bedini, maybe - using a pulse motor with a rotor?"
My reply: Yes many others, myself included and referred to repeatedly in my own work. Excerpts from my website with links below.
"• FLYWHEELS have a "threshold velocity" at which they DEVELOP more Kinetic energy per second than is required to be input to maintain that given VELOCITY!" - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/dynamics.html
and:
"Moreover an ordinary electric motor with a properly sized solid Matter flywheel installed is doing the work of rotating it, and consumes less electrical power per second maintaining the Velocity of the flywheel than the Kinetic energy developed by the flywheel per second." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/reality.html
and:
"The work of this system is only to maintain a designed Velocity of all other systems by maintaining Volumes of Matter in motion at the designed Velocity." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/open%20source.html
and:
"You should notice there has been no "fuel" has been mentioned. For the simple fact that after being placed in motion the SOLID MATTER IN MOTION DEVELOPS more energy than is being input to the Prime mover as long as VELOCITY is MAINTAINED. This system can be arranged to be self sustaining because of its over efficient design and the fact that the Laws of Nature support and allow it." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/paths.html
and:
"KEY II.2 UNDERSTAND Nature shows you its Mechanical energy is that of its Matter in Motion it maintains in motion at a Velocity of its choosing to DEVELOP whatever amount of energy it needs to do whatever work it decides needs to be done using any of its own forces the move matter in and through its space over its Time." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/knowledge.html
and:
"4. A Mechanical method and means to extract, convert and transfer Kinetic energy between solid matter objects as high pressure Mechanical energy pulses to develop/introduce non equilibrium into a system of inherent equilibrium,
5. A Mechanical means to split Time between Kinetic energy development, extraction and transfer of the high pressure Mechanical energy pulses,
6. A greater volume of matter in motion absorbing/receiving the Mechanical energy pulses at a Mechanical advantage, developing additional Kinetic energy and driving an electrical alternator/generator continuously." -
from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/index.html
and:
"The Wheel
A wheel is Matter having potential energy. Once in motion it has Kinetic energy. Putting it in motion from rest required power and force for a period of time to overcome Inertia and friction.
We know we can pulse power/force into a wheel for periods of time that are less than one full revolution of the wheel and Kinetic energy in the wheel will carry it around to get another pulse, time after time. That is what we do in piston engines to make Horsepower, converting combustible fuels into heat energy, pressure, and force to act on levers that convert linear motion to rotary to get Torque and RPM." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/time.html
and:
"A flywheel may also be used to supply intermittent pulses of energy at transfer rates that exceed the abilities of its energy source, or when such pulses would disrupt the energy supply (e.g., public electric network)." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/dynamics.html
A couple years ago Grahm (Grumage) built a test rig to look for the "Aspden effect", AFAIK he did not see or find any such effect. In all my years of work with Matter in motion (flywheels) it has never been noticed and I did even spend a few hours looking myself after having talked with Grahm about his efforts.
As for the "Linevich device", well I've been down a similar road on my own never even being aware of him until reading his name here. It is another path much can be learned from, just not all that easy or "practical" IMHO.
Bottom line is: Regardless of Aspden and Linevich being reality or not: Kinetic energy is mechanical energy that can be used to
MAKE MORE of the same , over and over again. That is reality that does not depend on them, or any of "us", nor can "we" change it.
https://youtu.be/lFornDBZsJY
Perhaps you did not see my experiment with this subject on an earlier topic, Double pendulum.
vince
There was a significant replication of what Aspden talked about:
http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Gyroscopic_Anomalies. I will look into the pendulum material as I get time.
[size=78%]I tried to plow thru the kinetic energy/wheel stuff and I'm not clear if anything beyond classical physics is being discussed. If there is something overunity/non-conservative being discussed, that's what I wanna focus on. Can we remove X amount of energy from a rotating flywheel and then add less than X to return it to the same speed? Not just a zero sum withdrawal of stored momentum.[/size]
Maybe.... this would be an effect of inertia itself that was never completely calculated ... as perhaps Kanarev suggested. It 'wants' to keep rotating and that could end up 'creating' energy.
Quote from: Eighthman on July 24, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
There was a significant replication of what Aspden talked about:
http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Gyroscopic_Anomalies. I will look into the pendulum material as I get time.
"significant" to what? Nothing in it leads to "making energy" or "time". You NEED both, everyone else does as well.
Pendulums necessarily involve; Matter, motion, a frame, KINETIC ENERGY, and TIME.
"as I get time." Where does TIME come from?
Pendulums have very limited power output potential for a number of reasons, the most obvious are low VELOCITY and oscillating motion that WASTES TIME. Precious TIME when it is used for making electricity.
Quote from: Eighthman on July 24, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
[size=78%]I tried to plow thru the kinetic energy/wheel stuff and I'm not clear if anything beyond classical physics is being discussed.
From the time stamp on our postings it appears you may have spent as much as two hours trying to "plow thru".
Consider what is involved in "making energy" to power a conventional generator: that alone requires making more time within your time.
Quote from: Eighthman on July 24, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
If there is something overunity/non-conservative being discussed, that's what I wanna focus on.
Did you catch my position on "overunity"?
"Over-unity" is FICTION.
100% is UNITY. To think otherwise is delusional. Requiring one to deceive themselves or allow their being to be deceived by another. In "reality" there is no such thing or effect for the simple fact: All that is "real" is something and has to come from a source." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/overunity.html
and:
Please find the "BASICS" at http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/wpimages/wp1ce1af03_06.png
Quote from: Eighthman on July 24, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
Can we remove X amount of energy from a rotating flywheel and then add less than X to return it to the same speed? Not just a zero sum withdrawal of stored momentum.[/font][/size]
Some people can but not ALL. Only because there is no "WE", as that would require UNITY where in fact there seems to be none.
Quote from: Eighthman on July 24, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
Maybe.... this would be an effect of inertia itself that was never completely calculated ... as perhaps Kanarev suggested. It 'wants' to keep rotating and that could end up 'creating' energy.
There is NO LAW that stops Nature from manifesting its KINETIC ENERGY. Make time to learn the lessons Nature provides.
The link I provided shows some university folks observing a lesser or greater need to re-establish a calibrated rotation. That, to me, is sufficient.
These discussions usually drift off into distracting commentaries that are injurious to the goal.
Can pulses of energy be removed from a rotating flywheel that are greater than the pulses required to restore its original amount of RPMs?
Yes or no.
Quote from: Temporal Visitor on July 24, 2016, 07:47:28 PM
A couple years ago Grahm (Grumage) built a test rig to look for the "Aspden effect", AFAIK he did not see or find any such effect. In all my years of work with Matter in motion (flywheels) it has never been noticed and I did even spend a few hours looking myself after having talked with Grahm about his efforts.
Dear Temporal Visitor.
It's been a while...... How are you ?
With regards to your comment I have provided a link to my two flywheel experiments......... Our audience can decide for themselves. It was a rather light hearted affair, my son and I didn't even remember the results !! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cev0Z9rKvag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85GS5APXfk
My physical health has deteriorated since the experiments but perhaps another might like to pick up from where I left off. V3 appeared to show/sound like acceleration on a couple of occasions. The motor used was a 240 V single phase 1/4 HP cap start/run and should not accelerate given that the input frequency was a fixed 50HZ !
Kind regards, Graham.
Thank you for your comments. I will watch your videos and think further about this. In addition to the reputed Aspden effect, there are also the Morgan/Wallace observations to consider.
I think many of us pursue these ideas in later life when time away from job or family is available. And maybe we accomplish something before aging grabs us or our brains shrivel. Down under, I'd like to know if all that Monaro livestock longevity thing was true and if so, why it wasn't properly followed up. We could all use another good 30 or 40 years.
Quote from: Grumage on July 25, 2016, 09:12:57 AM
Dear Temporal Visitor.
It's been a while...... How are you ?
With regards to your comment I have provided a link to my two flywheel experiments......... Our audience can decide for themselves. It was a rather light hearted affair, my son and I didn't even remember the results !! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cev0Z9rKvag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85GS5APXfk
My physical health has deteriorated since the experiments but perhaps another might like to pick up from where I left off. V3 appeared to show/sound like acceleration on a couple of occasions. The motor used was a 240 V single phase 1/4 HP cap start/run and should not accelerate given that the input frequency was a fixed 50HZ !
Kind regards, Graham.
Hi Graham,
It has been a while and sorry for misspelling your name.
In some ways; Generally better off health wise than a year ago. Definitely thankful and humbled every day for again even being "this side of the grass". Let alone now walking again: Perhaps out of necessity to give care to my wife.
Gen-E-Sys II wise ..... "It's getting better all the time."
Hope your health does ReGen-E-Rate II similarly and that we get to share via Skype again.
Michael
"Kinetic energy is mechanical energy that can be used to MAKE MORE of the same , over and over again. " You have never demonstrated that; so it remains an empty claim.
Me, I'm just looking for a real effect to iterate.
Quote from: Eighthman on July 26, 2016, 04:11:42 PM
Me, I'm just looking for a real effect to iterate.
Kinetic energy is as real as it gets in "this reality".
If you doubt it: try moving anything yourself, without Nature manifesting its Kinetic "energy" in reaction to your action.
If you invest your TIME and WORK hard enough you should find more power and "energy" than you can imagine.
If you do NOTHING: that will be precisely what you get.
More to consider that few people have found: http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/form2.html
E = mC^2 via 1/2 mV^2.
I reiterate: "That is reality that does not depend on them, or any of "us", nor can "we" change it."
"TIME waits for NO ONE, no not even me"
Michael
So, basically a lot of assertions with no specific, precise, overunity/free energy device whatsoever?
If the pattern continues, I expect you will next post a link that is full of instructions to "learn" but goes nowhere because nothing concrete is shown.
Again, no real effect to iterate.
Nobody disputes that kinetic energy is real. What is disputed is you claim as quoted.
http://www.ariplex.com/bg/bg_rotne.pdf
On page 13, this analysis of a reputed free energy device, reports an independent observation of what Aspden saw, apparently without any knowledge of his experiment. I now need to gather observations of what Linevich saw: apparent overunity in unbalanced rotation or vibration. Also, is there a clear hypothesis as to why or how this happens?
HI all, i do not know if it is centripetal or centrifugal, but is rather interesting.
i have contacted the guy in Greece and he reckon 5000 euro for his 4.5kw..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-L6_rVmU5U
His other videos gives a bit more info of the working principle of his invention..
Quote from: Eighthman on July 30, 2016, 10:34:42 PM
http://www.ariplex.com/bg/bg_rotne.pdf
On page 13, this analysis of a reputed free energy device, reports an independent observation of what Aspden saw, apparently without any knowledge of his experiment. I now need to gather observations of what Linevich saw: apparent overunity in unbalanced rotation or vibration. Also, is there a clear hypothesis as to why or how this happens?
Yes it appears to be an independent observation like Aspden's, my question to you is: How can anyone/you use it if you, or "we" are unable to "MAKE MORE of the same" - let alone "CREATE" energy?
As for Linevich seeing QUOTE QUOTE "apparent overunity"(LoL) : it is simply the acceleration of mass in conjunction with a lever and that combination is very real as explained beginning with 1/2mV^2 and the "Law of levers".
Unbalanced rotation or vibration can and will generate Kinetic energy but: also will make the device self destructing/short lived/high maintenance along with being/becoming an overly complicated mechanical mess/nightmare.
Attached find "specific, precise" photo's of a simplistic "device" using "cold hard lead" for its mass density rather than "concrete" that is functionally similar to Wuerth's stuff, made before ever having learned of his "stuff".
What could/would I "know" about any of this "using energy to MAKE MORE of the same" since you made the assertion there is "no real effect to iterate" ? ? ?
Robert Cook Inertial Propulsion Engine and a similar story !
http://www.forceborne.com/FBW/index2.htm
Linevich and partners did not find an investor to develop his idea !
The F. Wuerth Converter finally ended as a fraud.
Thank you for the pictures. Perhaps you could supply a link that describes your mechanical device in detail.
I don't understand what you are saying. If free energy is available from some sort of rotating mechanical arrangement, then how do we account for it within what is known about physics? It seems to me that either we are pulling energy from spinning nuclei (as Morgan/Wallace seem to be describing) or something like this:
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Index.htm
This second choice somehow involves separate inertial frames creating an energy difference between them. This would be a huge loophole or exception within physics conservation of energy. If it were true, it comes close to saying, "that's just the way the universe works, don't expect any further reductionist explanation". And it may involve Relativity in a way no one thought...
Perhaps that is what you are trying to explain..... and maybe it is the final truth here. Is it possible that inventors across time keep stumbling across this but reap rejection again and again? I am not a physicist and I'm just trying to reason on this weirdness.
Is it possible that the Aspden effect shows that energy can be removed from a flywheel in one amount........and then replaced by a lesser amount to maintain the RPM exactly where it started? If so, is imbalance of the rotor required?
Quote from: Temporal Visitor on July 31, 2016, 05:09:52 AM
Yes it appears to be an independent observation like Aspden's, my question to you is: How can anyone/you use it if you, or "we" are unable to "MAKE MORE of the same" - let alone "CREATE" energy?
As for Linevich seeing QUOTE QUOTE "apparent overunity"(LoL) : it is simply the acceleration of mass in conjunction with a lever and that combination is very real as explained beginning with 1/2mV^2 and the "Law of levers".
Unbalanced rotation or vibration can and will generate Kinetic energy but: also will make the device self destructing/short lived/high maintenance along with being/becoming an overly complicated mechanical mess/nightmare.
Attached find "specific, precise" photo's of a simplistic "device" using "cold hard lead" for its mass density rather than "concrete" that is functionally similar to Wuerth's stuff, made before ever having learned of his "stuff".
What could/would I "know" about any of this "using energy to MAKE MORE of the same" since you made the assertion there is "no real effect to iterate" ? ? ?
If this would be so easy then this publication content would be common,
"law of lever" here defined as "A generator is rotated by using power by employing by physical principle an apparatus which utilizes a lever shaft increasing force" :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19830729&CC=JP&NR=S58127557A&KC=A (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19830729&CC=JP&NR=S58127557A&KC=A)
Quote from: lancaIV on July 31, 2016, 09:40:39 AM
If this would be so easy then this publication content would be common,
"law of lever" here defined as "A generator is rotated by using power by employing by physical principle an apparatus which utilizes a lever shaft increasing force" :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19830729&CC=JP&NR=S58127557A&KC=A (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19830729&CC=JP&NR=S58127557A&KC=A)
That patent is a nice find actually, and one I did not find. Not that what it describes works, just that you found it and I didn't.
Nice work, however: There is much more than increasing FORCE alone involved.
Quote from: Eighthman on July 31, 2016, 09:17:08 AM
Thank you for the pictures. Perhaps you could supply a link that describes your mechanical device in detail.
You are welcome. Perhaps yes, but no link will be posted "to learn from" in part because of what you wrote earlier. Please try hard to understand: that device is only ONE OF MANY that were REQUIRED for me to LEARN FROM as to what Nature requires OF "us" (anyone, you, them, or me) to do if "we" ever plan on getting more output than our original input.
Quote from: Eighthman on July 31, 2016, 09:17:08 AM
I don't understand what you are saying. If free energy is available from some sort of rotating mechanical arrangement, then how do we account for it within what is known about physics?
You don't understand that right now, but that does not mean that you cannot or never will be ABLE TO.
It take$ TIME and hard WORK, that much I DO KNOW. "Known physics": Known by who? Would they be the same people who claim/assert they "don't have time to bother with any of this or that concerning "free energy" and cannot or will not MAKE TIME WITHIN TIME they do have, and haven't been GIVEN THE ABILITY to figure it out themselves and or simply tell everyone else that there is no such thing? (iLoL)
Quote from: Eighthman on July 31, 2016, 09:17:08 AM
It seems to me that either we are pulling energy from spinning nuclei (as Morgan/Wallace seem to be describing) or something like this:
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Index.htm
This second choice somehow involves separate inertial frames creating an energy difference between them. This would be a huge loophole or exception within physics conservation of energy. If it were true, it comes close to saying, "that's just the way the universe works, don't expect any further reductionist explanation". And it may involve Relativity in a way no one thought...
Perhaps that is what you are trying to explain..... and maybe it is the final truth here. Is it possible that inventors across time keep stumbling across this but reap rejection again and again? I am not a physicist and I'm just trying to reason on this weirdness.
Things are not always what they "seem". Besides, even if "energy" was coming "from spinning nuclei": where did they and their spin come from?
"the final truth" : I like that because when and: "if you listen very hard" you may find it "SEEMS"to take you directly to "the beginning". Of course in the second choice "Truth is stranger than fiction." and some will argue "truth is a relative thing". Not me.
Quote from: Eighthman on July 31, 2016, 09:17:08 AM
Is it possible that the Aspden effect shows that energy can be removed from a flywheel in one amount........and then replaced by a lesser amount to maintain the RPM exactly where it started? If so, is imbalance of the rotor required?
A third choice: contact me.
I believe that I have the key to the mechanical overunity, not this design, my design is entirely different. My design, is as per PurelyPrimitives, only heavily modified by me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zofLzxcc5AE
This is just showoff. As you can see, Topsolid is tool of building men who wish to make a product and study overunity to "make america great again".
If you wish to see more, you must tell Topsolid, Missler Software to stick to the "original deal"- another 100$ for pettyness.
Another question comes to mind - it is evident that some sort of field ('kinemassic' or gravimagnetic?) can exist near a rotating mass. The Morgan experiment claimed a reverse rotation triggered in an extremely close similar rotor. Is any of that transmitted or triggered rotation "free"? Does any sort of drag exist between the two such that conservation of energy is perfectly maintained?
I think I will look at torsion claims by Russians and Kozyrev in particular. There were counterclaims of error or fraud with these but that doesn't mean all of it was false.
If they did not get money or make an appealing video, I doubt there was a real device associated.
Your theory is meager what exactly is the design you have please show me a 3d design that manufacturable. Yes Russian theory of text is interesting but it's late now in the game. Close to midnight
It's not easy I fail many time to make good design. Hurry and show
You sound rather apocalyptic. I'm not ready for any design until I feel I have a correct theory. All these youtube videos are annoying because they show lots of belts and wheels that mean nothing without a solid rationale as to how the reputed overunity gadget works.
We need to look at odd, obscure effects that physics has overlooked.
" We need to look at odd, obscure effects that physics has overlooked."
Not physics but conventional physicians and engineers !
It is a step up/down (= lever) game with the "parametric" functions time and distance !
Pulse with modulation;PWM and the "duty cycle"
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20121011&CC=US&NR=2012256422A1&KC=A1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20121011&CC=US&NR=2012256422A1&KC=A1)
[0087] Power from Ph.1 stator winding is effectively the root-mean-square value of its stator current multiplied by its rms stator voltage=(Ph.1 peak current)*(Ph.1 peak voltage)*(0.5). Likewise, Ph.2 power=(Ph.2 peak current)*(Ph.2 peak voltage)*(0.5). Since Ph.1 and Ph.2 are essentially equal in magnitude and time displaced by 90° phase relative to each other, the Ph.1 plus Ph.2 power sum is (peak current)*(peak voltage) of either Phase 1 or Phase 2.
Inasmuch as peak current and voltage of Ph.1 and Ph.2 are equal to each other, and each is sinusoidal with 90° relative phase, and sin<2>(A)+cos<2>(A)=1, and the sum of power from Ph.1 and Ph.2 equals power fed to the DC power bus IDC*VDC, then, for either phase: (peak stator current)*(peak stator voltage)=(IDC,*VDC).
[0089] The above equation explains why controlling peak stator current so it is proportional to speed squared, when multiplied by peak stator voltage, which is proportional to speed, results in output power (IDC*VDC) proportional to the third power of speed. Coupling this generator to a wind turbine having blade pitch control or other means to limit its speed maximizes energy yield from the most prevalent winds, when power usually is most needed. It also protects the turbine from mechanical stress incurred by turbines that do not have said speed-limiting features, while still providing controlled DC electric power at levels its loads can accept.
[0090] Generator power and efficiency with wind turbine drive is computed below, for a representative example of the present invention, at maximum shaft speed, mid-speed, and minimum usable speed, using a few simplifying approximations. Shaft speed, power, and the other variables in the computations herebelow are exemplary, and not intended as limiting the present invention in any way. This will help explain FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 configuration operation, distinctions and improvements over widely used prior art generators:
[0091] Let maximum speed equal 1000 revolutions per minute (rpm), mid-speed equal 500 rpm, and minimum speed equal 100 rpm. Also, let maximum stator current Imax=10 amperes, and nominal VDC=100 volts. Further, let Q1-Q4 power MOSFET ON resistance Rdson=0.01 ohm, inductor L1-L4 series pair winding resistance RL=0.1 ohm. Also, stator winding resistance Rs=0.15 ohm, stator voltage Vmax=100 volts at 1000 rpm, and fly-back (free-wheeling) diode D1-D8 forward drop Vf=1-volt at 10 amp. These parameters are consistent with a test prototype, according to the present invention, developed to generate power from wind turbines.
[0092] At 1000 rpm, Vmax=100 volts, so PWM duty-cycle (Ton)/(Ton+Toff) is essentially zero. Therefore, losses=Imax<2>(RL+Rs)+2 VfImax=(10 amp)<2>(0.25 ohm)+(2 volt)(10 amp), amounting to 45 watts loss. Output power=(Imax)*(Vmax)=(Imax)*(VDC)=(10 amp)(100 volts)=1000 watts. So, generator efficiency at maximum speed and maximum power is about 95% for this example of generator and integrated electronics parameters.
[0093] At 500 rpm, Imax=(10 amp)/(4)=2.5 amps; and Vmax=(100 volts)*(0.5)=50 volts. So PWM duty-cycle=1⁄2. Average pulse power generated=(Imax)*(Vmax)=(Imax)*(VDC)/2=(2.5 amp)(50 volt)=125 watts. Losses to maintain inductor current=Imax<2>(RL+Rs+Ron)=(2.5 amp)<2>(0.26 ohm)=1.6 watts. Fly-back diode losses=2 Vf*Imax/2=(0.6 v)(2.5 amp)=1.5 watts. So total losses=3.1 watts. Therefore, mid-speed generator efficiency is about 97%.
[0094] At 100 rpm, Imax=(10 amp)/(100)=0.1 amp; and Vmax=(100 volts)/(10)=10-volts. So PWM duty-cycle= 9/10. Average pulse power generated=(Imax)*(Vmax)=(Imax)*(VDC)/10=(0.1 amp)(10 v)=1 watt. Losses to maintain stator and inductor current=Imax<2>(RL+Rs+2*Rdson)=(0.1 amp)<2>(0.27 ohm)=0.0027-watt. Fly-back diode losses=(2*Vf)*(Imax)/10=(0.6 v)(0.1 a)/5=0.012 watts. So total losses=0.015-watt. Thus, generator efficiency at low speed is about 98%.
rotorical,static/MEG/linear ,kinetical/mechanical ?
Motor : B/EMF ? F= BIL F= Compensation ?
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=5&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19790215&CC=DE&NR=2733719A1&KC=A1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=5&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19790215&CC=DE&NR=2733719A1&KC=A1)
partial translation by google:
In a conventional generator the field strength B, the length of his head with L and the current flowing through is denoted I, the result is the size of the counter force F, which is exerted on the conductor and thus to the shaft to F = BLI.
If the field strength of the electrical device 2B, the length of its conductor L is and only one current durchfiiesst, corresponds to the thickness of the half of the current flowing in the generator current, is the force exerted on the armature force F '= 2B x L x 1 = LI.
2 This shows that the force exerted on the armature of the electrical device and hence on the driving shaft power is equal to the counter force, which is exerted on the shaft from the conventional generator. The force is generated to act in a direction such that it compensates the reaction force. A stronger current flow provides the required torque to the shaft. Therefore, the shaft and thus the armature are moved on and generates electric power.
In order to flow current through these half the electrical device, half the generator voltage is required. So with is 1/4 of the power generated is lost to engegenzuwirken the deceleration force. The remaining 3/4 of the energy generated or slightly less of them are for outdoor use are available.
If the field strength of the electrical device is a multiple of the field strength of the generator, for example, 5-fold, it is necessary that 1/5 of the current generated flows in the electrical device to generate the compensating force. 1/5 of the generated voltage is required for the current flow. Thus, 1/25 or 4% of the energy produced is consumed in the electrical device, while 96% or less of them are for outdoor use are available. In this way it is not necessary that any electrical energy is introduced from an external source in the generator according to the invention for generating electrical energy.
read also Kanarev "Pulse Power" explaination
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/1180
https://www.google.pt/search?q=ohmsche+gesetz&client=opera&hs=8XG&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirk-bShqXOAhWIIcAKHYUED0wQsAQIPQ&biw=1366&bih=640 (https://www.google.pt/search?q=ohmsche+gesetz&client=opera&hs=8XG&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirk-bShqXOAhWIIcAKHYUED0wQsAQIPQ&biw=1366&bih=640)
Fucking stupid people think there is an already made theory and guide to follow.
No, there is only youtube and guesswork.
You seek an answer but there is none, all you have is questions.
And for you, there is only one thing, Hillary recovery, nevermind overunity designs, its too expensive and you dont know how to make it yourself.
You need, metal, tools, bearings, solid design, if all this is impossible for you then you should find another hobby for the time being.
First, become good builder, then, in your spare time, with spare money, build for pleasure and see.
You will not succeed, but you will learn useful things in your path to the magic overunity dream.
I don't understand your rambling hostility. Youtube is the proverbial needle in a haystack.
There will be no Hillary recovery. I have built - and will build- various devices in the hope of finding some form of free energy.
Simply throwing things together with no idea of a hypothesis is futile.
8man,
look for this
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=16&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20040226&CC=DE&NR=20317795U1&KC=U1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=16&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20040226&CC=DE&NR=20317795U1&KC=U1)
read and compare ,think about it and the application possibilities :
image
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=FR&NR=2112768A5&KC=A5&FT=D&ND=3&date=19720623&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
from
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20091130&CC=PT&NR=104078A&KC=A (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20091130&CC=PT&NR=104078A&KC=A) !
F.e.:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19720623&CC=FR&NR=2112768A5&KC=A5 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19720623&CC=FR&NR=2112768A5&KC=A5)
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 03, 2016, 07:04:48 PM
Fucking stupid people think there is an already made theory and guide to follow.
No, there is only youtube and guesswork.
You seek an answer but there is none, all you have is questions.
And for you, there is only one thing, Hillary recovery, nevermind overunity designs, its too expensive and you dont know how to make it yourself.
You need, metal, tools, bearings, solid design, if all this is impossible for you then you should find another hobby for the time being.
First, become good builder, then, in your spare time, with spare money, build for pleasure and see.
You will not succeed, but you will learn useful things in your path to the magic overunity dream.
You need "helpfull hands and minds" ! Also "capital risc/risc capital" ! Begins with our free-/spare -time
Each good budgeted R&D -project should be calculated with 250000 US$ !
A good idea,prototype exists,financial help ?! Theory and practizise.Real world
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/komoto-fans-heat-2000sf-for-4-cents-per-hour#/
One of my wonderments in regard to overunity devices - especially those involving centrifugal force - was the construction of Schauberger's inventions.
How the heck did he create multiple metal tubes that were elliptical in cross section, followed a twist, curved and tapered ????!!! OMG! It's hard enough to visualize boring a rifle barrel accurately!
Not only that, but I would think that some sort of precision was required in following some mathematical formula he uncovered empirically. This makes me wonder if Clem found an easier way to accomplish this, perhaps around a cone-shaped metal rotor with a spiral cut into its surface ( as with the related asphalt pump).
I need to look at Laithwaite's experiments and see if anyone put everything on a scale so that the guy holding the rod with the spinning rotor weighs the same in total compared to a static situation -or not. Might be some clues here......
Yes, I'm replying to my own post....... A wise man observed that if you want to understand a subject, explain it in writing. If you can do that, you've got it.
Logically, if the Schauberger pipes were elliptical, then an unbalanced centrifugal force was involved as it moved along. What a coincidence....
And yes, I read that some of Laithwaite's devices did show quite a weight loss when running.
To build my design and an awesome video for you guys, I need one of you to order me Topsolid.
I already got into a verbal fight with the reseller here, basicly he is a lazy hack and made my life difficult.
Now I need to deal with the US resellers.
I will wire money to them.
Call them up in the US, say you have a company named LB.inc
I will collect the license, they just need somebody to call.
http://www.free-energy-info.com/Chapt16.html
Replying to my own thread again (!) The thought occurred to me that some of Bedini's motors might follow the same set of principles as Linevich/Kanarev. You remove and then add back rotational energy using pulses. This hit me as I stumbled across one of his drawings. Again, this may be consistent with the Aspden Effect in which a flywheel can be re-energized with less energy than that which was needed to establish a certain number of RPM's in the first place.
Eighthman, check this guy out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIt661hfr9c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIt661hfr9c)
Just one of many examples which show that we mere mortals are befuddled at the simplest of physical oddities. Universities still teach that Thornson's demo is "impossible". The vast majority of the "education" centers the world over, specialize greatest at producing "arrested development"...cranking out minion after minion just smart enough (yet willingly dumb enough) to support a thoroughly corroded, rusting, crumbling....'machine'.
This crumbling 'cryptotech' machine has reached black hole status. The 'machine' is now both self powering and self defeating. It will capture all who come too close, and escape after close contact is a viable option for relatively few blessed souls.
The Light of countless suns will soon free us all from our (mankind's) long, sordid history of dominating one another to our own demise....
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2014/04/ancient-high-performance-electric-motors-discovered-that-are-still-in-production-2685290.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2014/04/ancient-high-performance-electric-motors-discovered-that-are-still-in-production-2685290.html)
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2013/11/faith-is-the-fabric-of-space-time-the-inner-life-of-a-cell-all-is-belief-2649218.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2013/11/faith-is-the-fabric-of-space-time-the-inner-life-of-a-cell-all-is-belief-2649218.html)
http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2014/06/pole-shift-of-noahs-day-about-to-happen-again-heres-the-evidence-you-decide-2461772.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2014/06/pole-shift-of-noahs-day-about-to-happen-again-heres-the-evidence-you-decide-2461772.html)
http://beforeitsnews.com/earthquakes/2016/12/magnetar-explosion-causes-deadliest-quake-in-modern-history-from-the-opposite-side-of-the-galaxy-2598790.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/earthquakes/2016/12/magnetar-explosion-causes-deadliest-quake-in-modern-history-from-the-opposite-side-of-the-galaxy-2598790.html)
http://beforeitsnews.com/earthquakes/2016/12/magnetar-explosion-causes-deadliest-quake-in-modern-history-from-the-opposite-side-of-the-galaxy-2598790.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/earthquakes/2016/12/magnetar-explosion-causes-deadliest-quake-in-modern-history-from-the-opposite-side-of-the-galaxy-2598790.html)
http://beforeitsnews.com/economics-and-politics/2016/09/malwart-and-the-mark-of-the-beast-the-mark-is-not-hidden-its-everywhere-2487951.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/economics-and-politics/2016/09/malwart-and-the-mark-of-the-beast-the-mark-is-not-hidden-its-everywhere-2487951.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzurtPFe9jE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzurtPFe9jE)
It has all unfolded exactly as foretold millennia ago....and is not coincidence. Do not be discouraged, for just as His Word has proven correct about how it would all go down, His Word is also correct about how and who would go UP. Up and far beyond the mess that corrupted mankind has made.
Then the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16And they said to the mountains and the rocks, "Fallon us and hide us from the face of the Oneseated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. 17For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?"...Revelation 6:16
Watch therefore, and pray always, that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. Luke 21:36
All the Best...
So we gonna die?
I got 2 months of soylent 1.6 I am in better shape than Yemenis.
After I run out, I hope to find shotgun and parts for overunity device as I travel across zombie fields.
Quote from: Eighthman on March 27, 2017, 01:21:12 PM
http://www.free-energy-info.com/Chapt16.html
Replying to my own thread again (!) The thought occurred to me that some of Bedini's motors might follow the same set of principles as Linevich/Kanarev. You remove and then add back rotational energy using pulses. This hit me as I stumbled across one of his drawings. Again, this may be consistent with the Aspden Effect in which a flywheel can be re-energized with less energy than that which was needed to establish a certain number of RPM's in the first place.
I won't vouch for "the Aspden Effect" in any way nor have I read any of the others you mention but I will point out two of many FACTS learned and proven in my own efforts.
"OBSERVED ENERGY FACTS:
1. All Matter has potential energy, matter in motion develops Kinetic energy.
2. Less energy input is required per second to sustain matter in motion than is developed per second beyond the objects threshold Velocity." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/facts.html
They go right along with what caught your attention.
In looking over the Linevich stuff - as well as some similar devices - it has also occurred to me that the absence of a solid, practical 'free energy' device may be a matter of engineering.
For example, I tried to make a Werjefelt 'magnetic battery' but soon found out that balancing attraction and repulsion in permanent magnets is nearly impossible. And even if you could, the magnets strength will likely change because some of them are forced into opposition - which can degrade them. So, start again if you succeed at first.
As for Linevich and others, i wonder if they truly found something earth-shaking but trying to engineer unbalanced loads rotating at high speeds may be nearly impossible. His approach of two weighted gears driven by a central gear is clever but I'm not sure if it's clever enough. Some of his experiments flew apart and I wonder if that's where the matter lies at present.
"OBSERVED ENERGY FACTS:
1. All Matter has potential energy, matter in motion develops Kinetic energy.
2. Less energy input is required per second to sustain matter in motion than is developed per second beyond the objects threshold Velocity." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/facts.html "
1: matter in motion does not develop Kinetic energy: it HAS Kinetic energy when in motion.
2. "Less energy input is required per second to sustain matter in motion than is developed per second beyond the objects threshold Velocity." WRONG: NO energy is required to sustain matter in motion, UNLESS ANOTHER FORCE (such as friction) acts on the matter in motion. Then only the exact same amount of energy as 'lost' (converted) is needed to return to the same velocity.
Quote from: memoryman on March 28, 2017, 01:33:28 PM
"OBSERVED ENERGY FACTS:
1. All Matter has potential energy, matter in motion develops Kinetic energy.
2. Less energy input is required per second to sustain matter in motion than is developed per second beyond the objects threshold Velocity." - from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/facts.html "
1: matter in motion does not develop Kinetic energy: it HAS Kinetic energy when in motion.
2. "Less energy input is required per second to sustain matter in motion than is developed per second beyond the objects threshold Velocity." WRONG: NO energy is required to sustain matter in motion, UNLESS ANOTHER FORCE (such as friction) acts on the matter in motion. Then only the exact same amount of energy as 'lost' (converted) is needed to return to the same velocity.
For the benefit of others, and as an ACT to be kind to you, quoting from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/energy.html this addresses your thinking/understanding which is very common.
"* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This is accepted as fact and known by the scientific and physics communities.
Placing ANY matter in motion requires Force to overcome Inertia and friction.
ANY and ALL Matter in motion DEVELOPS Kinetic energy within the Matter itself by an act of Nature.
I certainly agree there are losses with every conversion, transfer of "energy", power or force. We know this to be fact and true. My research and thoughts on why it is like it is go deep but suffice it to say we have been doing things for centuries that are not as efficient as they can be. As men we unnecessarily tend to over complicate everything we do. Ponder this: If E = mc2 : then
1. What form of "energy" was Albert thinking of?
2. What state of matter? Any and All matter or unobtainium?
3. If a particle of matter becomes "Pure energy" at the speed of light squared is that not a conversion and subject to the same losses we live with today? Or would that mean that we "created energy" which we have already ruled out as not within our capability as mortal men to "create" anything, let alone "energy" itself?
4. Would the "energy" DEVELOP progressively with Velocity or just poof into existence all of a sudden?5. Would not two particles double the energy by simple addition?
6. Would not multiple particles simply multiply the energy?
What do we get if we DEVELOP and ADD ADDITIONAL "ENERGY" exceeding the very real losses at every such conversion we currently accept as just the way it is?"
AND
Quoting from: http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/planes.html
"The only limits as to how much Kinetic Energy can be developed are our own thinking and the physical structural limits of matter we have available to place in motion."You can "think" I am "wrong", but that doesn't change reality. Can you please make thoughtful reply, especially to #4?
"ANY and ALL Matter in motion DEVELOPS Kinetic energy within the Matter itself by an act of Nature." that is false; please clarify what you mean by 'act of Nature'.
1: why does that matter? (pun intended)
2: ALL matter
3: "If a particle of matter becomes "Pure energy" at the speed of light squared" that applies to photons, which have no mass-at-rest; it does not apply to all matter. What we call 'losses are a name given to energy in a form that we don't want (e.g. heat).
4: it gets transferred/converted from the driving force according to e=mv^2, so, gradually.
5: yes
6: yes; "What do we get if we DEVELOP and ADD ADDITIONAL "ENERGY" exceeding the very real losses at every such conversion we currently accept as just the way it is?" that is a speculation, not a fact. There is NO evidence that this can/does occur.
"The only limits as to how much Kinetic Energy can be developed are our own thinking and the physical structural limits of matter we have available to place in motion." again, you make a statement without backing it with evidence or proof.
Your fundamental errors are in how you use language: changing/converting are not the same as developing. LoT1 states: "the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but neither can it be created nor it can be destroyed." note that the word 'develop' is not used.
http://www.dlinevitch.narod.ru/Eng/3zakN.pdf
Show me ONE actual device (not a youtube video or patent application or pdf or claim) that uses these principles.
Quote from: memoryman on March 30, 2017, 04:26:44 PM
Show me ONE actual device (not a youtube video or patent application or pdf or claim) that uses these principles.
Victor Arestov http://arestov.de/index.php/de/ (http://arestov.de/index.php/de/)
Edvid Linevich R&D co-partner
https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/alternative-loesung-zur-energiegewinnung-1003340445 (https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/alternative-loesung-zur-energiegewinnung-1003340445)
Der russische Wissenschaftler Edwid Linevich (Vladivostok) hat im August 2007 ein Patent für einen Unwuchtmotor angemeldet, der den Weg in zu einer umweltverträglichen Stromversorgung ebnen kann. Die Funktionfähigkeit des Motors wurde mit einem Testmodell im März 2008 unter Beweis gestellt. http://www.perpetuumobile.eu (http://www.perpetuumobile.eu) Die Testergebnisse sind erstaunlich:
Bei einer Leistungsaufnahme von nur 25 Watt entwickelt der Motor eine Leistung von 400 Watt .
call to him and ask about the prototype
an other "offer" from India :
faked reality ?
http://www.worldlever.com/narasimman.html (http://www.worldlever.com/narasimman.html)
this compared with :
https://www.google.com/patents/US8541894 (https://www.google.com/patents/US8541894) Jerry Blevins (R.I.P.) JBpower
http://jbpowersystems.weebly.com/index.html (http://jbpowersystems.weebly.com/index.html)
YOU are making the claims, YOU PROVE it; paper claims are nor proof.
Quote from: memoryman on March 30, 2017, 05:00:17 PM
YOU are making the claims, YOU PROVE it; paper claims are nor proof.
your comment is irrational !
"claim/s" makes part from Linevich and others patent applications which they have had to get aproved ! Some get US patent office grant but not EP granted !
I am not here offering own intellectual property claims !
"paper claims are not(neither-nor) proof " is probably more "paper money warranty" related ;)
I read through the PDF. I see a serious omission in his theory. He is ignoring the well known law of conservation of angular momentum. The is the law that says as the center of mass moves out in a rotating body the velocity will slow down and conversely as the center of mass moves inward the rotating body will speed up. This is the way figure skaters get to spin so fast by pulling their arms and legs together as closely as they can. They also stop quickly by merely putting their arms straight out.
You can prove this law to yourself if you have a piano stool or other chair that spins freely. Just sit in chair and have someone give you a spin while you have your legs straight out. Then pull your legs in and feel the effect. After you speed up then put your legs back out again and you will slow down. Pull them back in again and you will speed up again. If the bearings in the chair are in good shape you can do this several times until friction finally slows you down. What ever you gain by moving the center of mass in you will lose when the center of mass gets moved back out.
Respectfully,
Carroll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biellmann_spin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biellmann_spin)
http://dlinevitch.narod.ru/Eng/Vvedenie.htm (http://dlinevitch.narod.ru/Eng/Vvedenie.htm)
https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/view/20184764/otto-stein-quotdie-zukunft-der-technikquot-pdf (https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/view/20184764/otto-stein-quotdie-zukunft-der-technikquot-pdf)
page 21- from the booklet
Thanks for posting those links. It adds stuff I haven't seen before - since much of this is in Russian, it slows things down.
Kanarev published a number of criticisms of standard physics formulas about motion and inertia.
Suppose inertia was 'stickier' or more 'stubborn' that physics formulas would suggest? I think this is one way to interpret what Kanarev is saying. He seems to show pulling rotation energy away from a spinning rotor very briefly without slowing it down OR perhaps adding that rotation RPM back that is less than what was taken away.
Anyhow, that's what I see about the Aspden Effect - I think it may be a genuine free energy effect in which you rob some rotation (or part of one revolution) and put it back (for less). I understand that a physics lab in Poland replicated this effect, to its surprise.
I can understand why people would have trouble believing this stuff. However, has this subject been 'obstructed' by common attitudes of scientists? Centrifugal force is breezily dismissed as a 'pseudoforce' with little thought. Even Aspden expressed surprise at his rotational observation.
Quote from: citfta on March 30, 2017, 05:21:56 PM
I read through the PDF. I see a serious omission in his theory. He is ignoring the well known law of conservation of angular momentum. The is the law that says as the center of mass moves out in a rotating body the velocity will slow down and conversely as the center of mass moves inward the rotating body will speed up. This is the way figure skaters get to spin so fast by pulling their arms and legs together as closely as they can. They also stop quickly by merely putting their arms straight out.
You can prove this law to yourself if you have a piano stool or other chair that spins freely. Just sit in chair and have someone give you a spin while you have your legs straight out. Then pull your legs in and feel the effect. After you speed up then put your legs back out again and you will slow down. Pull them back in again and you will speed up again. If the bearings in the chair are in good shape you can do this several times until friction finally slows you down. What ever you gain by moving the center of mass in you will lose when the center of mass gets moved back out.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Its easy to go by assuming.
Can you mathematically prove otherwise?
If so, do it and explain where was the mistake.
If not, you must admit that linevich has better mathematical skills than you.
Its difficult to disprove such documents without in depth study, just saying things like that
does not mean you carefully analyzed all aspects.
Me I admit that cant disprove or prove at the moment, so I refuse to comment on his paper.
to reply #64: http://dlinevitch.narod.ru/Eng/pages_E.htm (http://dlinevitch.narod.ru/Eng/pages_E.htm) it is not in Russian
Kanarev is refering Linevich.
centrifugal/centipetal : counterbalance ?
how many dimensions has time-space
It is difficult enough for me to read the math and concepts provided. The fact that they are translated makes it more difficult. This is no one's fault, just language troubles.
Do you have a working link for the '25 watt to 400 watt' device? The other links seem good.
Thanks
This is really wild and speculative stuff.
http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/IUFO%20OUTLINE%20v23.pdf
read the section about Hall and the "Tall Whites". I think it's page 43. He identifies this gyroscopic movement and precession as the very mechanism with which UFO's travel. They use spinning photons within miles of optical fiber that surrounds their craft.
www.gratisenergi.se/Impulse_Power_Secrets.odt (http://www.gratisenergi.se/Impulse_Power_Secrets.odt)
#59:
https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/alternative-loesung-zur-energiegewinnung-1003340445 (https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/alternative-loesung-zur-energiegewinnung-1003340445)
Der russische Wissenschaftler Edwid Linevich (Vladivostok) hat im August 2007 ein Patent für einen Unwuchtmotor angemeldet, der den Weg in zu einer umweltverträglichen Stromversorgung ebnen kann. Die Funktionfähigkeit des Motors wurde mit einem Testmodell im März 2008 unter Beweis gestellt. http://www.perpetuumobile.eu (http://www.perpetuumobile.eu) Die Testergebnisse sind erstaunlich:
Bei einer Leistungsaufnahme von nur 25 Watt entwickelt der Motor eine Leistung von 400 Watt .
http://web.archive.org/web/20080610065702/http://www.perpetuumobile.eu/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20080610065702/http://www.perpetuumobile.eu/)
Arestov and Linevich are co-partners : Permotors GmbH(~Lda.)/Austria
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=permotors&IN=&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search
Hermes is a very firm believer in OU/FE. He has no grounding in physics/math.
It's hard to make complete sense of what Kanarev says in the NPA document. The device in the photo looks to be a simplified motor generator because it looks quite different from the mechanically complex Linevich device with its double clutch arrangement. Also, I don't understand why he goes on about electrolysis when free energy seems to be available directly in that which he proposes.
Perhaps he is re-directing the subject because (as he says), he doesn't want to be done away with by exposing 'free energy' !
The US Linevich patent seems odd to me because it is a complex mechanical arrangement (two clutches, for example) - and I would think that the whole device could be greatly simplified if he made it as a switched motor-generator, with input power supplied for part of one rotation - as the clutches are intended to do. Perhaps that's what Kanarev did already with the pulse generator.
OTOH, he may be limited in his resources ($) and nobody probably listens to him - so he may have simply gone with what he has for the patent filing. (US 8866314)
Anyone thinking that a motor/generator of any configuration will produce FE needs to do some study of basics.
As a Physics Professor, Kanarev is saying that the common math about inertia is in error. As an engineer, Linevich is saying the same thing - at least in regard to unbalanced centrifugal forces.
The proof is in the pudding, not in claims.
Um..... yeah, that's why Linevich has built and tested a number of devices that show this effect. His patent clearly states (8866314, section 4) "A trial prototype of a small capacity power unit according to the invention similar to that depicted...was built and successfully tested in August 2008"
It may state whatever you want; where is the working (demonstrating OU/FE) prototype, or better, production units?
If that exists, I can get serious investors (no charge by me) for ANY amount.
Kanarev is an institution to himself. His credentials are immaculate.
He doesnt need to prove anything to dweebs like memoryman.
He has not only a free energy plasma electrolysis overunity device, but also some sort of electro-mechanical overunity device.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSLfrh-CFYQ
He does not go into details about his technology and doesnt need the money of poor people.
When you look at the sky, you see God, look a bit below that, you see Kanarev, this is how much high he is.
Of course I am way too low for such an exalted Godlike person; when can we buy one of his PRODUCTS?
If you are low, by buying these products it would make you high, the goal is that you should remain low and not get access to these products.
"If you are low, by buying these products it would make you high, the goal is that you should remain low and not get access to these products.' only if these products actually existed.
Ask the chillean sailors if the UFO that came out of the ocean in front of them was real or fake.
"Ask the chillean sailors if the UFO that came out of the ocean in front of them was real or fake." Of course they will SAY it's real, but
what is the relevance to OU/FE products?
What does knee-jerk incredulity cause? Currently, there are some credible results on LENR (Cold Fusion) research - which itself started in the 1980's. So- what 30 years of dismissal? You can read (this past week) about good results from massive doses of Vitamin C in chemotherapy .....which was promoted 30 - 40 years ago. Something is very wrong with science these days.
As to this Linevich matter, is it possible that his discovery went unnoticed for centuries because it concerns something ordinarily eliminated or rejected? If something is unbalanced in rotation, you try to get rid of it, not use it. Good engineering accidentally obstructed the recognition.....
Linevich must be a man of limited means - his prototypes used bicycle wheels and sprockets and chains ( in the photos). I think his overrunning/one way clutch might have been from a bicycle, too.
Even so, his device will face big challenges.
It sometimes comes down to practicality, with this one I studied it before, I have crossed it out for this reason.
He speaks of a need to engineer this with the help of specialists.
A clutch is not meant for such high repetition, those things are rated for a few million cycles.
It is frustrating...
Bearings aren't meant for unbalanced loads, either. I'm surprised that he gets clutches to work that fast.
I think this is why his device needs to be upgraded to a switched motor-generator. I think that's what Kanarev had in mind. If that can be done, I see no reason why it can't be closed looped.
He is hiding something for sure, that device on video, if its from him he did not describe it.
That pink water plasma thing also, that device looks pretty cool.
He basicly hides all the good stuff and gives us his obfuscated theories.
Is that like saying "if this is OU/FE than I see no reason why it can't be closed looped"?
memoryman,it is one thing to claim somewhat,Linevich got his technical/physical claims approved and granted by the european patent office which normally denies such "perpetuum mobile-near class"-objects !
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document?pn=2241785&ki=B1&cc=EP
So this is called now "Technical Standart".
It's surprising that he got this device patented at all, given the bias of patent examiners, esp. US
Call me a skeptic, please. No energy in/out calculations (note the electrical motor), no claims of OU/FE. So, what does it do that prior art didn't do?
If you're not willing to investigate and read the associated papers, why are you commenting on this topic?
Linevich's paper on centrifugal force as an energy source shows his results of watts in and watts out in various tests. He also explains how his initial observations of an unbalanced rotating load led him to his invention. If you then say, 'that's just his claims' (whether true or false), then your purpose seems to be simply to discredit or spread doubt, apart from any evidence or information provided.
I truly don't know what to think about this Linevich/Kanarev matter, but I am open-minded about it.
I was commenting on the patent.
" but I am open-minded about it." the trouble with so-called being open-minded is that your brain can fall out.
Sice all this is in the public domain, where are the actual products using the 'principles'?
The answer is quite simple: the principles are wrong.
There is NO energy generated in flywheels.
Then there is no further need for you to be commenting on this thread. You automatically know that the cited literature is wrong. You know that all of the relevant observations are false or fraudulent.
You know that the people involved are liars, fools or grossly mistaken - and , in particular, there is no need for you to actually read, analyse or comment on the material provided.
And yet, I will continue as I see fit.
It is rare to witness such pseudo-skepticism stated so honestly.
Thank you
I am an exceptional honest person.
I am a real skeptic; not 'pseudo' anything.
QuoteThe answer is quite simple: the principles are wrong. There is NO energy generated in flywheels.
Then this forum has nothing to give for you and you've also nothing to contribute with right here: your leaving this forum will be win-win solution for both sides - don't you think? Frankly, I can't understand, what all patoskeptics are still doing here: they should leave this forum already and they should be also all banned at the same moment. Nothing from it actually works here.
QuoteI am a real skeptic; not 'pseudo' anything.
No skeptic is real, once he ignores the experiments without attempt for their replication. Such a "skeptic" is just religious troll like any other: he believes in (negation of) something without arguments. At any case, if you're really honest, you should ask the moderator for wiping your account from here. We aren't here for doubting, but for examining the things.
Patents of Edvid Ivanovich Linevich (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/edvid-ivanovich-linevich) Apparently antigravity (unbalanced weight rotor) was their topic too..
"Then this forum has nothing to give for you and you've also nothing to contribute with right here: your leaving this forum will be win-win solution for both sides - don't you think? Frankly, I can't understand, what all patoskeptics (sic!) are still doing here: they should leave this forum already and they should be also all banned at the same moment. Nothing from it actually works here."
You sure have a lot of opinions; there is no need to share them. I am not leaving this forum until I and nobody else, decide its time.
"No skeptic is real, once he ignores the experiments without attempt for their replication. Such a "skeptic" is just religious troll like any other: he believes in (negation of) something without arguments. At any case, if you're really honest, you should ask the moderator for wiping your account from here. We aren't here for doubting, but for examining the things." So, start by examining.
Quote from: memoryman
I am an exceptional honest person.
I am a real skeptic; not 'pseudo' anything.
&
We aren't here for doubting, but for examining the things." So, start by examining.
Great, here's one "exceptional" question JUST FOR YOU that goes directly to you being "honest" and needs only a one word answer.
Q.:
Have you ever lied?
Of course I have, Mike. I never said that I hadn't.
There isn't a person who hasn't lied.
Was there a point to your question?
Quote from: memoryman
Of course I have, Mike. I never said that I hadn't.
There isn't a person who hasn't lied.
Was there a point to your question?
"I never said that I hadn't." - Think hard, you are lying right now, again, and here is PROOF
Quotengepro Mod Temporal Visitor/guest • 2 years ago
Well Mike, I don't lie or make empty promises.
To which my reply then was:
QuoteTemporal Visitor/guest ngepro • 2 years ago
Thank you Bill: "I don't lie or make empty promises." - that statement is and contains a LIE and your nose is growing.
"....... , I will continue to post." - Without a doubt more will flow from your; Oh So solid wooden head.
You ask: "Was there a point to your question?"
Yes, to bust your chops with FACTS and point out that in fact "Problems arise with unhealthy skeptics:" as written about here: http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/skeptic.html.
Point is: My "hope" that you are NOT CHALLENGED and too dense to learn truth as one "unhealthy skeptic" written about
It's all OK though, everything is as it is supposed to be, I don't need your nonsense, you need not reply to any of my posts.
Being a skeptic on an overunity site is not a productive philosophy in life, not forward looking.
Of all the things you could do in life that is a pretty pathetic choice.
Overunity is a puzzle, if you are not here to solve the puzzle you might as well shut up, I am a veteran forumite and never bother with such weak arguments as to why I should not build something.
All problems is but a mouse scroll away, why do you enjoy wasting your time with negative and "incapable" philosophy.
No no, me I am capable dont waste your breath, its only the idea of what I am gonna do that is switching.
Micheal, I believe you and I had much things in common, we should stop trading jabs, there is many thing I wish to debate with you. We should make a club of higher minds, I am a bit bored here.
Well said, Zephir. This pseudo-skeptic problem has haunted this and other sites for far too long.
Disagree as you wish but at least do the reading. Let us be the opposite of the attention-deficit/ My Eyes Glaze Over idiocy that guides world politics - seemingly now more than ever.
Mike, you have not countered my response to your post (maybe you can't?):
"ANY and ALL Matter in motion DEVELOPS Kinetic energy within the Matter itself by an act of Nature." that is false; please clarify what you mean by 'act of Nature'.
1: why does that matter? (pun intended)
2: ALL matter
3: "If a particle of matter becomes "Pure energy" at the speed of light squared" that applies to photons, which have no mass-at-rest; it does not apply to all matter. What we call 'losses are a name given to energy in a form that we don't want (e.g. heat).
4: it gets transferred/converted from the driving force according to e=mv^2, so, gradually.
5: yes
6: yes; "What do we get if we DEVELOP and ADD ADDITIONAL "ENERGY" exceeding the very real losses at every such conversion we currently accept as just the way it is?" that is a speculation, not a fact. There is NO evidence that this can/does occur.
"The only limits as to how much Kinetic Energy can be developed are our own thinking and the physical structural limits of matter we have available to place in motion." again, you make a statement without backing it with evidence or proof.
Your fundamental errors are in how you use language: changing/converting are not the same as developing. LoT1 states: "the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but neither can it be created nor it can be destroyed." note that the word 'develop' is not used.
Websites such as OU and R-G are to have technical information and discussions, they are NOT about personal matters.
A lie is the telling of something by the teller, that is KNOWN and acknowledged to be untrue.
It is distinct from: opinion, promise (where the teller could not know that the promise would not be kept).
So when YOU promised that Rudy and I would be shown your flywheel device that generates energy, when we visited you, and didn't get to see it, it was a lie by YOU, as you KNEW that you couldn't show that because you never had such a device (and still don't).
As to:
"ngepro Mod Temporal Visitor/guest • 2 years ago
Well Mike, I don't lie or make empty promises." that statement was true then as it is now.
I have lied in the past. I stopped many years ago.
I don't care about your website, as it has errors on it (as Simon also pointed out); haven't been there in years. Stick to facts.
ARMCORTEX: "Of all the things you could do in life that is a pretty pathetic choice." Actually, chasing an impossibility is far more 'pathetic', as far as I am concerned.
Eighthman: which other sites have I 'haunted'? Are you referring to the site that was run by a child molester?
Ok well its a fun hobby to have, at the worst case scenario. Its a certainty that you defend day in day out.
I dont see the goal of your existence...
Let those with a hobby do their hobby.
Is your hobby being a skeptic on overunity site and sop others from doing their hobby?
I get some value out of being here from posters such as MileHigh, TinselKoala and Mark D.
Some others also appreciate my comments; I don't care if others don't.
Anyone can believe what they want; I may choose to comment or not. Most threads don't interest me and so I don't comment or follow, especially by 'that_prophet',"franco malgarini" and " ltseung888'
I am usually willing to discuss any topic as long as it doesn't get personal.
"Mike, you have not countered my response to your post (maybe you can't?): "
"Stick to facts." - OK, no problem, enjoy.
Countering your response was/is not required for the FACT it explained why it was posted:
Quote from: Temporal Visitor on March 30, 2017, 09:29:22 AM
For the benefit of others, and as an ACT to be kind to you, quoting from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/energy.html this addresses your thinking/understanding which is very common.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You can "think" I am "wrong", but that doesn't change reality. Can you please make thoughtful reply, especially to #4?
Fact is: while writing a detailed response to you it became obvious that I was wasting time on you who has already proven them self to be the epitome of the "Unhealthy skeptic" - and the decision was made to again be kind and not bother you with facts you appearently cannot deal with nor get around, thus that reply was never posted by my choice.
IN FACT it was you who later and elsewhere made the "exceptional" and very "personal " claim first and went on to invite "examining".
IN FACT it was you that set yourself up to be knocked down with your own words.
FACT IS I simply did what you suggested and helped you examine yourself in a question that required few words.
FACT IS: In your own answer - You shot your self in the head - and don't like it.
Now you try to weasle out of it with all the usual tricks - to no avail. Like I told you before: You are done.
The FACT is, as usual you demonstrated or proved NOTHING to anyone ever, because you can't.
QuoteI get some value out of being here from posters such as MileHigh, TinselKoala and Mark D
You can learn a bit about mainstream physics from them - but not about what you actually did come here for, i.e. about overunity. Now you have to put the principal question: did you come to this forum to read, why overunity can NOT work - or about the opposite? If you want to learn mainstream physics, there are many way better forums for it.
QuoteThe FACT is, as usual you demonstrated or proved NOTHING to anyone ever, because you can't
One thing I can tell you for sure: once you don't believe in overunity, then you're predestined to never invent it or contribute to it - and not just this: you'll also prohibit in its finding for others - willingly or not. The findings and inventions are waiting only for positively tuned minds. Once you admit, that you can't do something, then you're already defeated in your heart and you're just trolling others with your incompetence.
Zephyr, thanks for a reasoned post.
I looked at some posts initially out of curiosity and stayed because of certain posters.
"One thing I can tell you for sure: once you don't believe in overunity, then you're predestined to never invent it or contribute to it - and not just this: you'll also prohibit in its finding for others - willingly or not. The findings and inventions are waiting only for positively tuned minds. Once you admit, that you can't do something, then you're already defeated in your heart and you're just trolling others with your incompetence." incorrect in several ways. You know nothing about me other than that I am a skeptic; that is an ongoing journey. Being a skeptic means that everything, all claim are continuously examined, including 'laws'. The result is that I am involved in something that is as close to OU as you can get. It challenges the 2nd law of thermodynamic (2LoT). Currently the aim is to get a working prototype this summer or fall, and then see if it can be scaled up to produce power in an usable amount.
If you think that "The findings and inventions are waiting only for positively tuned minds", my mind must be tuned well, as I have a number of ideas and inventions; and actual products.
Enough for now.
I'm going to get a bit philosophical here in regard to overunity. I fail to understand why objections to free energy become truly religious. No one should support theories about conservation of energy or thermodynamics to any degree greater than solid experiments show.
If free energy was easy, direct and widely available in nature, we wouldn't exist because the whole universe would be a sort of blazing inferno of light, heat or electric discharges. If free energy exists, it has to be subtle and very limited. The "place" to look is in anomalies - the little stuff hiding in footnotes and fringe observations, suggesting that loopholes exist.
Why would anyone 'religiously' believe that there is never, never any exceptions to supposed laws of physics? Do they think that the "Universe" as some sort of Omnipresent God zealously keeps this all perfect, everywhere, everytime? If we introduced the idea of God as Creator in biology, you would hear screams of objection but somehow no one seems to complain when an EVEN GREATER miraculous direction of nature is called for by physicists insisting on 'laws'.
Eighthman: some observations. First, this is not a personal attack, but a discussion.
"I'm going to get a bit philosophical here in regard to overunity. I fail to understand why objections to free energy become truly religious. No one should support theories about conservation of energy or thermodynamics to any degree greater than solid experiments show." well, we have hundreds, even thousands of years of observation and experimentation that confirm that energy is conserved (LoT1) and no evidence that is is not.
LoT2 is a somewhat different law, as it is statistical, not absolute. There exist a number of devices that make use of this statistical nature; scaling it up his been the problem. We hope to solve that problem by 2020; no guarantee.
If free energy was easy, direct and widely available in nature, we wouldn't exist because the whole universe would be a sort of blazing inferno of light, heat or electric discharges. If free energy exists, it has to be subtle and very limited. The "place" to look is in anomalies - the little stuff hiding in footnotes and fringe observations, suggesting that loopholes exist. the search for FE/OU is not needed if LoT1 holds; after all, why look for something that you can never run out of?
Why would anyone 'religiously' believe that there is never, never any exceptions to supposed laws of physics? Do they think that the "Universe" as some sort of Omnipresent God zealously keeps this all perfect, everywhere, everytime? If we introduced the idea of God as Creator in biology, you would hear screams of objection but somehow no one seems to complain when an EVEN GREATER miraculous direction of nature is called for by physicists insisting on 'laws'. wrong: see the challenges to LoT2. The laws of nature are constantly being challenged, but in a scientific way, not by feelings or emotions or 'because I was dreaming one night'.
I am giving talk this month about 'the power of critical thinking'. Thinking is a process; to be effective, it should be done in a methodical way.
QuoteIf free energy was easy, direct and widely available in nature, we wouldn't exist because the whole universe would be a sort of blazing inferno of light, heat or electric discharges.
This is a nonsense, I already explained here, that the overunity devices in general don't violate 1st law of thermodynamics - only the 2nd one. They generate energy into account of their own cooling - such a cooling has been observed many times, for example during replications of Searl device with Russians and elsewhere. The existence of breatharians indicates, that the human cells (the ATPases in their membranes being more specific) are also able to work like the overunity devices, because the ATP synthase can work like the Maxwell demon up to certain extent. Therefore the argument "ïf the overunity exist, then the Nature would already utilize it" doesn't really count here. This doesn't imply, that the free energy is easy, direct and widely available in Nature - as it's connected with subtle subquantum processes. But it can be observed with naked eye: for example at the surface of superfluid helium, which eternally fluctuates and vibrates even at the temperature of absolute zero.
What is there for me to argue about if your statements confirm what I've said?
"Generally"........the Lot2........... 'statistical'
And that's that. No emotion needed, just literacy.
Thank you!
Zephyr: "If free energy was easy, direct and widely available in nature, we wouldn't exist because the whole universe would be a sort of blazing inferno of light, heat or electric discharges." I did not say the BOLD part; that was a quote that I disagree with.
Eightman: What is there for me to argue about if your statements confirm what I've said?
"Generally"........the Lot2........... 'statistical'
And that's that. No emotion needed, just literacy.
Thank you!"
Since your quotes are snippets, there is no context.
Tutaj to jest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taj4VA1L_vw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taj4VA1L_vw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmtOAfrGnw0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmtOAfrGnw0)
"I am a 53 year old man who saw a demonstration of the exact technology you are described here 31 years ago when I was in the seventh grade. Phillips petroleum came to my school and demonstrated different stuff I guess to get kids interested in science. One of the things they did was make a tire spin very very fast and lifted it of its mount by only one sided of the axle, the force of the spinning tire kept it upright. He proceeded to tell us that this is done by centrifugal force and that it what is being used to do what we are about to show you. At this point he picked up a remote control handset and said I want you to watch the suitcase at the other end of the table. He starts messing with the remote and the suitcase rises from the table, a closed suitcase. He then in a very controlled way flew the suitcase around the room and landed it on the table. There was no sound, no exhaust no nothing just a closed suitcase. I can't find any evidence of this tech and most people think it doesn't exist but I know better and there were a few hundred other kids in that room. The problem with tech is you can't just put everything you create out there. Some will have economic consequences and other will have destructive consequences. I know how it feels to be isolated in you ideas and beliefs just wanted you to know, your far from alone. Peace!,James" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmtOAfrGnw0)
Many working prototypes of closed propulsion devices have been built. Two of them are told of here, in this comments section. The US patent office has issued perhaps 100+ patents on such devices, dating back to at least 1925. Search patent # 7,832,297 and see cited previous patents that it improved upon. This is the most recent patent I have found, which was in 2010. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmtOAfrGnw0)