My research proves that almost all overunity devices draw their extra energy from the potential energy of the local gravitational field. And to describe them in full scientific detail, it is required to revise the Maxwells equations of Electromagnetism to no-linear equations, and Einstein's theory of gravitation. So for the academic world to account for them it is required 1-3 nobels...
Here is a the link for a paper produced by me, when the Bristish Aerospace invited me during 1998 (Greenglow project) to lecture at the Lancaster University in UK, for thsi and relevant topics:
http://www.ckscientific.com/PapersinPhysics/Lancast8_suspended.doc
also
http://users.softlab.ece.ntua.gr/~kyritsis/PapersinPhysics/Lancast8_suspended.htm
It is classical physics, not super-difficult to read.
If we did not challenge the laws of physics of Aristotle we would still be holding bows with arrows and using slaves.
The way to extract energy from the field (electromagnetic and gravitational) and furthermore from the kinetic energy of the perpetual motion of electrons, protons, and neutrons in an atom, is exactly some of the overunity devices that are known.
So I will state, what many would be afraid that the case was with some overunity devices: IT IS SOFT ATOMIC POWER. A way to extract energy, among other sources, from atoms , without splitting them, without fusion, sometimes without even chaning their chemical bonds.
Here is a list of past Physics assumptions that I believe that 21th century and the new millenium physics has already started and will eventually turn all of them false
1) Inertial mass of bodies ( of constant ammount of molecular matter) at low speed (non-relativistic) cannot be decreased.
2) All matter starts with protons, neutrons, electrons. In other words, there are not smaller permanent particles (Quantum particles are excluded as they are not permanent)
3) Nothing goes faster than photons
4) All macroscopic electromagnetic interactions are described with the linear equations of Maxwell.
5) All forces acting on laboratory macroscopic objects at low speed (non-relativistic) are of the next 5 types a) Inertial, b) by contact with other material bodies made from protons, neutrons, electrons, c) Newtonian gravitation forces d) Maxwell's electromagnetic forces e) no other type of forces.
The Greenglow project of the British Aetospace in 1998 , was a copy of similar small project of NASA and had the next objectives (seemingly outrageous for standard Academic Science)
1) Invent new propulsion for flying
2) Produce while flying the fuells, or not using fuels at all.
3) Ability to travel faster than light
At the 1st conference, it was announced that a series of similar conferences would follow within Greenglow. But it seems that it was the first and last conference. Either they found what they were looking for, or they were entirely discouraged. The site remain in the web for a couple of years with my name among 2-3 other lectures and then it was
eliminated.
Here is the link of another case of ""overunity" or "free energy" process developped in Rowan University
The link of the youtube video about blacklight power is http://www.youtube.com/watch?vÂ=DfjOIoPwolg
It was discovered and elaborated inside Rowan University. Still, the standard academic science does not have the slightest idea where the additional energy, in the energy balance of this process , comes from.
Since it is validated by Universities , there is not the danger of accusations of being a fraud etc. And since it is highly unlikely that it is already a military classified technology, there does not seem to be a fatal obstruction in developing it. The only real difficulty is the conceptual inadequacy of the present physics.
In my perception, the missing concept to understand where this renewable energy comes from is by shifting from the old concept of "electromagnetic field" of an atom , "gravitational field" of an atom and "quantum vacuum" in an atom, as empty space for interactions propagation, to a more realistic concept of a finer layer of physical and real gaseous matter around the known particles, made from permanent particles again (as permanent as protons, neutrons, electrons) but vastly smaller (e.g. 10^(-40) as order of smaller size). All energy of almost all the "free energy devices" or "overunity devices" seems that it comes from the internal energy of this finer gaseous material layer (centuries ago called by Newton, Maxwell and many other, aether). Which is equivalent to saying that it is from the potential energy of the new unified electro-gravitational (and not only) field. And it is renewable because both it is a vast reservoir and it is replenished by the transfer of energy through friction of protons electrons and neutrons in this finer gaseous material layer of the molecular heat energy. This is the required conceptual leap for standard academic science to unblock the development of cheaper and zero CO2 emissions energy.
I watched recently some videos in the famous site www.ted.com that show how present time innovative, talented and famous people think about the future changes in the energy model. I recommend some of them
1) Bill Gates approach:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
I think quite conventional and sadly resorts to nuclear power again
2) Al Gore's (Nobel prize winner)
http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_warns_on_latest_climate_trends.html
Powerful way to urge.
3) Thermal solar device of small size.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_on_new_energy.html
Brilliant! I wish such computer optimisation could be done to some other amateur "free energy" devices as well.
4) Interesting perspectives of how to win the oil-end game:
http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html
5) Simplistic conventional forecast of the energy uses till 2050:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_sears_planning_for_the_end_of_oil.html
6) Sad debate where nuclear power wins over renewable energies:
http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html
And what I noticed is that nowhere is mentioned the plenty many "free energy" innovations found in the web.
So I wrote a letter to Bill Gates pointing out to him, the present situation of "free energy†or “overunity†devices. I suggested to him to do something e.g. fund an institution where Universities, innovators, and investors could cooperate.
I also wrote a similar letter to Chris Anderson that runs the www.ted.com , as the perspective of energy innovations of “free energy†devices is an idea worth spreading. It contains seeds for valuable development in theoretical science, engineering, and business, fo good resolutions of the global climate crisis, and CO2 emissions.
I did not expect any response of course.
ted.com... ever follow the money? you know, cui bono?
the 4th largest offender in pollution, general electric, is the biggest funder of ted.com... actually it's pretty interesting to see who is on that 'list'...
I wonder why none undertakes to write some decent articles in wikipedia about overunity devices. Even the article on HHO referrers to Brown (original term HHO=Brown gas) as a fraudster when claiming standard properties of the HHO flame that may produce extra energy. Unfortunately or not the policy of Wikipedia is not to seek for the truth, as this may be impossible, but to keep a neutral position. So if there are objections to conventional thinkers, that rush in to accusing that all about overunity devices are fallacies and frauds, wikipedia is obliged to present the opposite opinion too, based on existing links.
Quote from: DrKCostas on June 10, 2010, 07:07:19 PM
My research proves that almost all overunity devices draw their extra energy from the potential energy of the local gravitational field.
...
There is not one working OU device therefore a theory for a not observed phenomenon is not a theory but a SF fantasy.
Quote from: DrKCostas on July 17, 2010, 01:22:48 PM
... the policy of Wikipedia is not to seek for the truth
...
Yes it is and fortunately. People writing in Wikipedia try to be objective, and it is the reason why there is no article considering OU as a fact.
This is a reply to the remark of exnihiloest:
So if you believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds, and that no overunity device exists what on earth are you doing in a site like this? And you appear also as a Sr Member with many stars!. Very strange...... You are trying to do what here? Persuade everybody that the site must not exist? I know better than you. I am not fool to believe in the existence of devices that create energy from zero. But I am smart enough to know that some people call overunity some devices that the user provided energy is less that the utilizable output energy, and that physical reality provides somehow the rest in a way that is not obvious, and especially in a way that escapes the standard academic concepts and theories. If all the energy exchanges were to be included such devices might have an efficiency well below 60% (and not over 100%) And obviously such devices that are genuine and real are also worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Academic science is trying to do its best, but if all were 100% as they formulate there would not be evolution in science. There were times that the physical laws were that heavier bodies fall faster, that earth is flat, that nothing heavier than air could fly, that matter is infinitely divisible and atoms is shear fiction. It is ignorance and arrogance to try to use the energy conservation law and laws of thermodynamics (that are obviously correct laws) in order to suppress genuine and very valuable inventions that appear as overunity devices, simply because it is very difficult or almost impossible with the present scientific concepts to have a complete energy accounting of the phenomenon. I know of course that there is a majority of devices called overunity than they do not work. But not all of them. I compare such absolute claims of yours with the arrogance and ignorance of all those that were creating physical proofs that nothing heavier than air can fly. I assume also that if in ancient Rome someone was presenting a radio , and a receiving of voice of thousand of miles away, hundreds of people like you would rush to prove that this is physically impossible (sound cannot travel that fast and in such a large distance etc, etc) So do not try to create the wrong impressions, you have fallen to the wrong scientist, and the wrong site.
Quote from: DrKCostas on July 18, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
This is a reply to the remark of exnihiloest:
So if you believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds, and that no overunity device exists what on earth are you doing in a site like this?
...
I'm searching for one, while debunking nonsenses.
Your message is fallacious, because I don't believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds. There are much more absurdities than frauds, i.e. OU claims when there is nothing else than basic phenomena known since the 19th century, or pure theories outside of any facts.
Misinterpretations of experiments due to ignorance, are the most common errors, resulting in OU claims by egocentric people. It gets worse when followers give allegiance to their gurus in despite they have not experimental proofs and often not even verified by themself. They prevent by their noisy gibberish real experimenters from working rationally, exchanging their results, and concluding it is not OU when it is not. It seems to me your method belongs to this kind of counterproductive attitude.
We have not to believe in any thing. We have only to search for unknown phenomena while hoping that one of them will perhaps give us a key to free energy.
Answer2 to exnihiloest
You write in your 1st message
"...There is not one working OU device..."
And when I reply for the obvious unproductive and absolute negativity of your attitude you come to the less absolute "..I don't believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds.."
It seems to me that you try to make general absolute statements based on indeed many fallacies of innovators, some frauds too, for all devices. You make similar statements too for my work that I doubt you studied at all or understood it, as I admit it requires more than graduate University studies and many years studies of the history of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics to realise what is suggested. It took me more than 7 years working on it. I do not work anymore on that. I have never presented any device of my own, neither I have financial interest on the subject. It is all scientific interest, love of humanity, and now sometimes my hobby.
Making such absolute negative aphorisms for all devices by you becomes easier due not only the scientific difficulty to account for the energy, but also due to social-military-economic suppression of this direction of evolution. Unfortunately secrecy of some military groups official or not relative to such exotic renewable energy (and not only) has become like cancer tumour to the body of humanity. It is know in history that on the name of “people’s democracy†the soviet political system in the past jeopardised democracy. The same is with “national securityâ€. On the name of it, is jeopardised not only national security of the same country, but of all the humanity as a whole, and valuable evolution is suppressed. There is a number of “free energy†devices since the 20th century ( I have analysed 4-5 and spotted a 2-3 more after 2000) that are true and beyond doubt working if you have enough expertise and IQ to realise it. In my case it was my job too as I was University Lecturer on relevant subjects, and I was cooperating and consulted by other University Professors too. Some of the devices are recognised my smaller cycles of the Academic World. But not globally for many strong reasons, irrelevant though to the validity of the device. It is naïve to think that just because a new renewable energy device works, and the energy is cheaper than the standard, it would be immediately accepted. Some of the older such devices are waiting for almost a century now. If I would spent more time I could find a lot more that appeared the last 5 years. It is not easy to find which are the working and which not, if you do not have a scientific theoretical concept of where the renewable energy would come from. E.g. if you know aerodynamics it is not too difficult to figure out which flying devices would most probably fly. But if science had not developed yet the aerodynamics, then it would be very difficult. The easy would be to find a lot of fallacious devices of egotistic or not innovators, some frauds too, and then declare in a general aphorism that everything is as in old times unreliable people trying to invent the perpetual motion, to deceive financially. This would be easy to believe too by most that surfing the web, as it would require less effort to think about the subject.
Quote from: DrKCostas on July 24, 2010, 04:32:00 AM
Answer2 to exnihiloest
You write in your 1st message
"...There is not one working OU device..."
And when I reply for the obvious unproductive and absolute negativity of your attitude you come to the less absolute "..I don't believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds.."
It seems to me that you try to make general absolute statements based on indeed many fallacies of innovators, some frauds too, for all devices. You make similar statements too for my work that I doubt you studied at all or understood it, as I admit it requires more than graduate University studies and many years studies of the history of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics to realise what is suggested. It took me more than 7 years working on it. I do not work anymore on that. I have never presented any device of my own, neither I have financial interest on the subject. It is all scientific interest, love of humanity, and now sometimes my hobby.
Making such absolute negative aphorisms for all devices by you becomes easier due not only the scientific difficulty to account for the energy, but also due to social-military-economic suppression of this direction of evolution. Unfortunately secrecy of some military groups official or not relative to such exotic renewable energy (and not only) has become like cancer tumour to the body of humanity. It is know in history that on the name of “people’s democracy†the soviet political system in the past jeopardised democracy. The same is with “national securityâ€. On the name of it, is jeopardised not only national security of the same country, but of all the humanity as a whole, and valuable evolution is suppressed. There is a number of “free energy†devices since the 20th century ( I have analysed 4-5 and spotted a 2-3 more after 2000) that are true and beyond doubt working if you have enough expertise and IQ to realise it. In my case it was my job too as I was University Lecturer on relevant subjects, and I was cooperating and consulted by other University Professors too. Some of the devices are recognised my smaller cycles of the Academic World. But not globally for many strong reasons, irrelevant though to the validity of the device. It is naïve to think that just because a new renewable energy device works, and the energy is cheaper than the standard, it would be immediately accepted. Some of the older such devices are waiting for almost a century now. If I would spent more time I could find a lot more that appeared the last 5 years. It is not easy to find which are the working and which not, if you do not have a scientific theoretical concept of where the renewable energy would come from. E.g. if you know aerodynamics it is not too difficult to figure out which flying devices would most probably fly. But if science had not developed yet the aerodynamics, then it would be very difficult. The easy would be to find a lot of fallacious devices of egotistic or not innovators, some frauds too, and then declare in a general aphorism that everything is as in old times unreliable people trying to invent the perpetual motion, to deceive financially. This would be easy to believe too by most that surfing the web, as it would require less effort to think about the subject.
you have 6 to 8 working OU devices!!
please explain why no one has ever claimed strphen's prize and why when ever anyone begs for help to make one run they always get the run around that ends with read and study.
fritznien
Reply to fritznien.
This is easy to understand why : 5 of these overunity devices where invented decades back in the 20th century, and 3 of their inventors are already dead. The first that is still alive is already famous way back before www.overunity.com was created but interested only for fame lectures and science not money. The other one is already produced massively the last 20 years and sold by a large factory in Europe. And from the 3 during the 21st century, one I think is already patented, the other was in a University, that somehow have snob attitudes to sites like www.overunity.com, the other again have their own publicity and finance. They do not evolve all in the same "linked component" of the web. I did not mentioned them explicitly which is which, as I am not interested to raise a discussion here about their validity. But you can find all of them in my 70 pages work in the links of the 1st post.
Wow, didn't fritznien just say, all we get is the run around with the read and study crap.
Quote from: Tempest on July 24, 2010, 02:47:01 PM
Wow, didn't fritznien just say, all we get is the run around with the read and study crap.
i guess you and fritzy will just have to wait for ertl to start making 'snap together' OU models then... what? you think if you whine loud enough someone will put it on a silver platter for you?
Reply to Tempest
Maybe the crap is your real intention and modes. At first why you would want to make one? 1) For the money? You would have taken advantage of someone elses idea, besides you will have to face industries financial wars. 2) For fame and honor and a prize? Again you would be trying to take the prize and honor that someone else would deserve. Let us go now to better motives: 4) To experience the joy of a new undreamed device hither too. Good! this is good! But you have to remember the 1st innovators never give a detailed manual or recipe. Simply because they do not intent to educate. Inventors have chaotic laboratories and they are not always conscious of all the significant details of their practice. They do steps 1, to 100, but consider non-obvious only 1-5. So they tell you do 1, to 5. You do them and nothing happens. You go back, and you say: You know what, your device does not work! Then they do not bother to answer you, because your attitude is already undermining to them. So you have concluded: That inventor is crap. But it might not be necessary. Let us go now to even better motives: 5) To apply them to my household to reduce my energy costs! Great! This is a good sovereign individual intention. ( I had myself such a motive with a couple of free energy generators that I knew they were working) But Alas! Innovations are never so ready and in final development to apply them immediately to our household. Especially without many years verified practice, neither production, neither user manual….Now to even better intentions: 5) To enhance your understanding of physical reality and scientific knowledge. Now that is a great and spiritual intention.! Bravo! (I had and still have such motivation myself) But alas again! The really impressive zero CO2 emissions free energy generators must be really a theoretical breakthrough too, otherwise there would have been found long ago inside University laboratories. So most probably the inventor would not be in a position to explain to you why it is a scientific breakthrough. And most probably it would be simple enough to make it yourself in a laboratory. Besides with such motives we are more satisfied with a complete detailed description like in a patent application, plus a detailed physical explanation, rather than manufacturing it ourselves. And again here we would follow the real conscious human sequence: First I think then I act, and make. Not vice versa. Aim fist and then shoot, not shoot 1st then aim. Have you ever noticed that learning software from a good help or manual instructions is always, faster, more confident, with less frustrations, and mistakes, that learning it the other way, as they say “fall and swim� At least for me this is how it works.
In conclusion: We better introspect and analyse all the spectrum of our real intentions plus expectations:
1) I want to do it to make money
2) I want to do it to get honour
3) I want to do it to save energy
4) I want to do it to enhance my scientific knowledge
5) I want to prove that humanity can make it to a new energy model
6) I expect full scientific explanation
7) I expect full detailed explicit instructions (better ….than Microsoft’s manuals [this is joke])
8) I expect to tell me full instructions how to avoid fallacies or fraud by unreliable innovators. (like police instructions in a storm? [this is joke again])
9) I expect it to be simple and cheap so I can make it with little money in my laboratory
10) I expect that in a few months innovators will solve the 50 years problem
11) I expect that all this will happen in this site.
12) I expect that I will not be harassed my secrete services, claiming that its already a classified technology.
13) I expect that I will not be harassed by fuel industries that may have antagonistic old fashioned energy.
So check yourself! What are really your intentions. Will you improve as a person pursuing it? Do you have a good chances? Are your expectations realistic? Can the 21st century sovereign individual do what 20th century group-coordination was accomplishing? Do you think first then act? Vice-versa? Both? Can we do the seemingly impossible without many mistakes, and a very short time, without big industries being involved to it?
Let us not hash to crap everything at the fist difficulty
@ DrKCostas
Dr Kyritsis,
I tried to understand the material on
http://hydrino.org/
http://hydrino.org/faqs.html (very interesting answers)
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
It is way over my head, since I only have a very loose understanding of particle physics.
May be you like to answer a question which came to my mind:
According to your opinion, is the "Hydrino Technology" (especially the technology described and as far as I can see also sold by "Blacklight Power") a "overunty technology"?
Greetings, Conrad
As I perceive it about Blacklight Power, yes.
But remember that in Rowan University would never use a term like overunity, as it is not considered an academic science term.
I have more than 10 years that I was studying particle physics, and I do not have the full information of what are doing in this laboratory. But from their videos, seems that the powder they produce must be the new fuel that substitutes gasoline, or coal . They make it through a reaction of water, salt, and other common materials. In this reaction they provide less energy that what is stored in the powder. The extra energy is provided from unknown source as they imply. Therefore we should understand them as overunity process. They claim that it costs 1-2 cents per KWH versus 6-10 cents per KWH of coal. Quite complicated experimental devices! Not indeed so elegant compared to other amateur's devices. But academic engineering! The important is that academic science in Universities is starting to accept energy production (implicitly assumed renewable) , where energy is provided from the physical reality in an unknown to them way. Of course they do not put too much emphasis in publications on that especially at industrial production.
Remember that we are living in a new century that the sovereign individual must learn to accept the principles of his own self rather than authorities.
You must understand that I do not claim to be an authority on that. It is just my understanding.
Talking about the other site that you mentioned http://hydrino.org/ (which I have not studied, I just visited after your remark, and I thank you for this ) and unified field theory:
Historically physical science was trying to unify 3 types particles interactions in accelerators and other experiments.
1) Quantum electrodynamics 2) Weak interactions 3) Strong interactions
They were not successful.
Do not bother to understand what each of these interactions are about. I myself gave up being interested years ago.
And now I see them as collective mind traps, that block the evolution of physics, mainly due to the bad story of the nuclear weapons.
But in my work (link of my fist post) and I think in the meaning of the above site about unified field, the indented interpretation is different. They refer I think to the macroscopic laboratory classical field interactions of bodies like 1) Newton’s universal attraction (gravitostatics) , 2) Maxwell’s electromagnetism and 3)….some other that might by called (Einsteinian-like) gravitodynamic (or antigravity).
Here the things are easier to understand as we are talking about usual high school simple laboratory experiments.
As far as I know there is not any generally accepted unified field theory here either. My work is the keys to develop one. Only the keys not the final equations.
And there are many half-spiritual half-philosophy of science sites that assume in advance that such a unified field (or theory) does exist.
Skipping all the mathematical and other physical details, what someone can safely and clearly keep in his mind about such a unified-field is the next
The present false implicit DOGMA:
1) Standard Academic physics assumes implicitly that all the permanent material world starts with the proton, neutron and electron particle. Nothing else permanent exist before them in the background.
So the gravitational field, and electromagnetic field, are though as “empty space†where the interaction propagates. Between the above three particles there exists nothing but “quantum vacuumâ€
That is why Academic physics is totally unable to explain the existence of the free energy devices and many true over unity devices.
This implicit dogma is I would say a ……â€reptilian mind†attitude, because older centuries physics and great minds like Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Thomson etc all insisted that no there is a finer material layer the so called by them “aetherâ€.
E.g. Maxwell; initial term for the electromagnetic field was “Electromagnetised Aether†. We have almost total collective amnesia of it!
So if any one would formulate equations of this aether that would unify Newton’s gravitation. Maxwell’s electromagnetism etc as aspects of the same gaseous aether material layer, this would be the unified field. Once this is done, then the energy of the free energy generators and overunity devices could easily be explained as added from this material layer (aether)
In my work, I refer to the matter made from protons, neutrons, electrons as
the 3rd material layer or resolution or density, while that of aether, as the 4th material layer or resolution or density. It is finer and again it consist of …..say micro-protons, micro-neutrons, micro-electrons (or aetherons) that may be even 10^(-36) times smaller than a classical electron and permanent (not temporary as the quantum particles).
This is the main idea in very simple high-school physics terms.
I hope I did clarified it and answered your question.
Always to my understanding. I do not enforce any authority.
You read a lot into to one simple sentence. To give you a little back ground, I’m a industrial electrician. I’m a hands on person. If you need a vacuum chamber with high voltage electrodes in it then I can build one. If you need a pulse circuit at 45 Khz, this I can do. But I am not going to try endless amounts of money trying every possible combination of endless ideas. Sorry not in my budget. And it isn’t for about 99% of the world. So unless you can point us in the right direction, you’re just blowing a lot of theoretical smoke around. Theory is nice to know and all, but unless we have a device that I can build with the help of the local machine shop and some electronic know how, you do us little service. To me it looks like you want to throw a theory out (and probably a good one) and have someone else do the work of the fine turning and figuring out the physical aspects of it. Then you will step in and say “this is my ideaâ€. I just want a device that I can build so I don’t have to be a crack addict to the energy supply. Then I can help other people build them. For me it’s not about profit, it’s about energy independence.
well said Tempest, i can and have built and repaired many things but i do not see a single thing here worth the effort.
you can explain in half a page and a couple pictures how to make a DC electric motor out of wire nails tape and a piece of board(done it in school) but nobody can explain an experiment to demonstrate OU in a hundred pages here with 20
utube clips.
Ok here is my shortest answer to that.
1) First I will never claim "this is my idea" on any device build by anyone based on my work either if I am aware of it or not.
Because my work had different original intention: To be published on one of the standard Academic Journals. At least due to its size but mainly due to its content this is not to happen.
At best I am still thinking that one day if I find energy and time, I can condensed it from 70 pages to maybe to 5-10 pages and published it to a well accepted academic journal together with publication of quantitative measurements of am utterly simple experiment (e.g. based an unusual coil, or magnet pendulum etc) just to prove that the linear Maxwell equations must be corrected to non-linear. Scientists accept only beyond doubt quantitative measurements that can be reproduced. In addition I cannot spend time and money or effort more than the simplest possible experiment (that an idiot can understand too). As it will be so simple, I doubt I will need anyone to make it for me. I will just go and buy the material and make and measure it. Even a laboratory will not be needed. But this will not be by far any free energy or overunity device to sell or use to save energy.
2) About suggesting a free energy device that works, for you to build. I understand that it must be cheap and simple. I understand also that you want to build it because of the joy of observing and showing it! I doubt that it can be useful for you to make money or use it to save energy. It would be not clever at the present state of the art of free energy to want anything but the amateur’s joy of observing it and thinking about the science of electricity.
Then the best candidate would be also the most primitive device of all that I know, that was also running successfully for at least 20 years. And that would be the Swiss Testatika of P. Baumann (died in 1999 by old age). During 1997-98 I had found a very-very detailed diagram in the web of how to build one as a copy of smaller version of those that were using to power their monastery in Methernita. They say that after the death of P. Bauman the monastery does not have experts to continue running it, and they just keep them for history. I had found also sites of people that had made such generators from old musical vinyl disks and it was working.
For this device I would spend my little money and effort to make myself. I do not know if you can find after 10 years such building instructions in the web, but you may try. Also you should be prepared to insist till you get the result. As far as I remember after 10 years the basic idea was two disc rotors, one with many metal rays for the centrifugation of electrons (the “heaven†as they were saying) and one with less (the “earthâ€). They were setting in rotation (e.g. 30 rot. per minute) both by a small electric engine, but they were rotating in opposite direction. Then they were collecting electric currents with “brushes†from the disc with the many metal rays. This was high voltage low ampere (non-alternating). current that they were converting it to standard voltage and Ampere. The extracted electricity was enough to support the little starting engine that now is used as stabiliser of the rotation, and also store the rest in battery to light bubbles etc. The other devices that I know are of thousands of rotations per minute use magnets instead of electrostatics and are expensive. You can find in the web images of testatika and possible videos. Maybe instructions too from amateurs that made it and it works.
But do not try to answer me with objections (I know some people they tried and its does not work etc) I will not believe you.
This discussion topic is not to give instructions for any OU device to make. You are looking in the wrong place.
The links with my theoretical work in my 1st post are put here with the intention of possibly inspiring innovators and inventors in their own work.
If they are inspired good. If the ideas mean nothing to them (no bell rings in them) it is again OK.I am not interested personally in any prize for OU, and for the last 5 years I work intensively in Management and Finance. I changed specialisation. I simply keep a look in the state of the art of free energy devices as a hobby, and I just though that putting a post to link my work might be of help to some, and avoid the repetition of old mistakes of researchers. I do it for the sake of rationality. First think then create and manufacture. This is the main point with the internet: surplus creative work solves problems.
Do not undermine it.
My humble opinion about "overunity devices" and whether one can build them easily.
Let's consider two very interesting technologies that appeared recently:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/ (special gray powder)
http://www.bloomenergy.com (very special chemical as catalyst, very special chemical compounds in the plates)
(Disregarding whether they are overunity or not) it would be extremely difficult to replicate these two technologies. Very special equipment and special manufacturing capabilities are necessary to produce and to use the necessary chemical compounds.
Let's consider as third example a modern transistor. It is almost impossible without very high tech machines to alter a transistor or to build a slightly different one.
From all three examples we can deduce, that it will not be easy to replicate a future overunity or even not overunity technology.
So, the hopes of many people in this forum will probably have to be abandoned. It will not be easy to build and it will not be described in a few videos or publications. A deep understanding of certain known technologies and of at least one completely unknown technology will be necessary (and very special equipment and very difficult to obtain materials and chemicals).
I also suspect (like Dr. Kyritsis), that the answer to future overunity technologies (or to any new technologies) lies beyond or behind the particles which we know today.
Some call it "the fabric of space", which we yet have to discover. The particles we know (and which are taught at the universities today) "swim" in some unknown substance which we yet have to understand. And it can well be that we need a totally new world view (may be without all these particles) to describe it.
And once we understand a bit what lies between everything, we can may be derive new ways to produce energy. Or better said, we might find new ways to "harvest" energy.
In my world view one does not produce energy, one takes it from somewhere. And we might find new places in-between all things known today (in the fabric of space) from where we can take energy.
But all this said, I still think that this forum (overunity.com) offers interesting things, even when they do not work. My attention was drawn to many things which I did not know before. Of course, I also saw a lot of mental sickness, which I have not seen before. But all things together, I am always learning a lot. May be there are better ways to learn about new (and known) things, but I have not found a more entertaining one. Interacting with other people is more entertaining than reading books.
Greetings, Conrad
@conradelektro i think you would be surprised what can be done in a small lab or workshop with off the shelf tech.
the transistor was invented in 1920. semi conductors have been used for over a hundred years. the problem we have is nobody can explain the basic principals of operation for an OU device. lots and lots of words that mean nothing,
or that mean something only the author understands.
drk you talk a lot but say little. the Testatika looks neither simple easy or complete to me. invented 20 years ago and all they do is sell videos. if this is a good idea i want nothing to do with anything bad.
fritznien
I agree that no working overunity device can be found on the internet (or elsewhere in this world), all waffle, illusion or fraud.
(Of course it depends a lot on the definition of "overunity". For me a "overunity device" is a magic box that gives you near endless power without any power or fuel input, e.g. at least 10 KW for many years. If you want to be very liberal with the term "overunity", you could call a solar panel a "overunity device".)
I can believe, that some people saw strange effects, but then they could not reproduce them consistently. Instead of admitting that, they often cling to illusions. The frauds are easier to spot than the self delusionalists.
I just suspect, when a new technology appears, it will be difficult to replicate, like all technologies in the past were at their beginning.
May be one can then replicate the "effect" in principle, but building a useful device is an additional very high hurdle to overcome. The first transistors were useless, just interesting objects for researchers. (Vacuum tubes at this time were performing much better and were cheaper.)
Yes, lots of things can be done, but only by a few, with the equipment and the skills.
If one lowers expectations (not demanding a magic box), one can hope for new very efficient power generating devices which give a lot of power with little fuel. But also this remains to be shown in a credible way.
Greetings, Conrad
1) I tend to agree with conradelektro.
On the other hand I believe that even Universities are helped if there is relevant discussion (inspite being confusing, like Babylon and imperfect).
If we produce generators that harvest renewable (?) energy and none of the producers neither the Academic world understands where the energy comes from is ....a one of a kind of a situation. But if we are satisfied with that and think that this is the way it should be, then something very wrong goes on with our civilisation.
Human beings are spiritual beings, not meant to be magicians to just get the result without a rational causal explanation.
I assume it is temporal.
The definition of an OU is: A device or process where the output utilizable energy is larger than the input energy provided by the user. The difference is provided by nature or physical reality, in an non-obvious way that may require revision of some formulations of physical laws, but not of the law of energy and momentum conservation.Under this definion OU are proven to exist
2) Now about small laboratories of individuals and big industries:
Big industries and Universities should be ahead. It would be easier.
But they are not!
Instead the big industries for financial reasons(and some secrete official or not military groups for power reasons) are instead pulling back. Given the pressing global climate problems CO2 etc pulling back is very dangerous for humanity and its survival.
Here is that the sovereign individual comes: Responsible freedom of self-determination and becoming truly self-confident and free to unconditionally be responsible for one's self, without being coerced to accept some higher authority.
And a financial and monetary system has the value of protecting some fairness in deals,only when there are serious differences of consiousness and self-responsibility development of individuals among societies. The money in macroeconomics is like the temperature in atmospere. Money simply measure activity and circulation of services. With higher Gross domestic product, more money is cut, and all have more resources. And as in the atmospere, temperature differences create winds, so in society differences in accumulated capital creates changes. But not all winds are progressive. Some are regressive. If almost all individuals in a society were of equal development in consciousness and self-responsibility a monetary system probably would not be needed.
The true Globalisation is good not as a hidden externally hijacked world Government, but as that when the individual becomes through the internet and through introspective self-analysis global.
I have felt it many times while working on free energy: As if the weight of the future development of humanity was on my shoulders. Any one will feel it when working on this way or another experimental, political or theoretical. It is an opportunity to clear our intentions and grow.
For the moment all this is suppressed. The value of this site is that it tries to correct that, in its limitations of course. The individual laboratory will not do everything, but it will change the collective subconscious. Then one day some more powerful researcher in a University, or Industry will feel comfortable to change old theories fund a research and open the door to exotic renewable energy. Without the many forums and sites and videos in the web this would never be comfortable.
Fear and other unpleasant emotions would always control our mind and consciousness never to discover the rest of the reality.
I hope that one day simple devices in the households would produce all energy and we would not need to be plugged in an expensive electric grid.
3) I also believe that the magnetic generators renewable energy should get priority and put all our efforts there compared to the HHO energy generators and water cars. I do not like H2.
Electric cars powered by the magetic renewable energy are better (less noise too).
Another reasons : The new-electromagnetism propulsion will permit extremely fast air travel, that HHO airplanes never will reach. If we correct the maxwell's electromagnetism to non-linear we get not only free energy but also a new powerful electromagnetic propulsion.
So we should go on but without personal extravagant expectations. And it should be satisfying too.
Another cheap shortcut is to find an old television set. Inside they have a transformer that is very efficient at producing 35kv sawtoothe waves. Hook up the highvoltage wire to a coil made of 5 or 6 turns of iron wire which is either painted or heavily oxidized. Support the coil in a piece of plastic with the ends protruding pointing towards Earth. Turn on the set. From the ends of the iron wire will be issued two coronal discharges. If you are fortunate enough to have one of those devices which measure temperature aim it at the field below the discharges. A drastic drop in temperature will be seen. Where is the heat going from this field. It is an ion wind most likely driven by the heavier air mass surrounding it but again where is the heat content going from that was in this air before it was ionized. I have a sneeking suspicion that it is being converted into light and sound at the tips of the wire coils as the free electrons are accelerated to realitivistic speeds by the electric field between the ends of the coil and ground. Which leads us to a touchy subject. Can the propogation of an electric field do more work than that needed to propogate the electric field. In a vacuum tube they heatup a filament to get a few electrons tossed out of the fray inside the glorified lightbulb. Wheras in a piece of copper wire they are free to begin with go figure. Edison and his stupid hot pieces of wire. So what I describe is a big old atomspheric tube. Ground appears to have alot of free electrons also. They used it as a wire in one wire distribution systems for years. One wire from the pole to the house and the rest of the juice went back to the pole via ground. This is where pulsed dc comes in. You pulse a wire and before any mass can get its ass in gear the wholes or missing mass around protons can. They rush quite easily to the ends of the terminals whereas the electrons got inertial problems to contend with. If you sustain the voltage or filter it like the capacitance developed in a picture tube the wholes and electrons migrate more or less in phase. This is not a good thing because an electron just loves a whole to drop into like it does on a led and in so doing it slows down and emits photons which heat the wire and everything gets inefficient. Suffice to say that the wholes migrate to either end of the iron wire leaving the negatively charged electrons relatively fixed, The wire as a whole is neutral but is polarized positively on either end as the lead end was attached to the center of the iron wire. On cessation of the applied voltage there is no force sucking the wholes back into the wire as one would have with ac so why move. Iron resists electron dispersion because of its high internal neuclear magnetic dipole moments. The electrons doing a cyclotron dance around the neucleus genertated mag field. This lack of free electrons allows for the migration of wholes or whatever makes a proton positive to the ends of the wire. There it appears and creates an electric field over ground. Electrons are accelerated towards the pole and leave the ionized cores in the dust. Guess what I am trying to say is that it is not really holes that move in semiconductors or wires or produce positive charge it is virtual particles that are already in motion creating the charge of the carrier.. When charge carriers move these virtual particles move along with them to sustain the charge. Now there is an electrical current flowing just like the ones out in space where there appears to be a total lack of charge carriers but alot of currents propogating magnetic field disruptions and currents on into infinity. For the sake of curiousity I stuck a piece of copper wire used in relays and put it on the end of a pole down in the ion wind and turned off the lights. There it was a white bluish light coming out of the sides of the copper coils and white light down the ends. This is 18" away from the electrode. Finnally I understood what Tesla was doing. He was after the virtual particle flow disruption. The electrical currents that are flowing from somewhere to support charge on mass everywhere.
Quote from: sparks on July 25, 2010, 06:41:48 PM
If you are fortunate enough to have one of those devices
which measure temperature aim it at the field below the discharges.
A drastic drop in temperature will be seen.
Where is the heat going from this field.
Not a complaint per se',
just a constructive point.
They measure IR emission.
They should not be used to measure things
that are actively emitting other spectrum's too.
Coronal sparks are included...
Maybe this will help:
http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/temperature/advances-ir-temperature-measurement-1368
On the other side of that coin, your right.
There have certainly been previous instances
were a measured loss of ambient temperature
has been observed in experimental devices ! :)
Also when the testika is running (it was running for decades in Methernita) a small drop of ambient temerature was recorded.
Inspired by the 12 universal laws from Milanovich and McCunes book "The Light Shall Set You Free"(1998) I resume some of the principles of my research in the booklet in the link below, but without the mathematical equations and details, to 12 universal physical laws for the new millennium physics.
http://www.ckscientific.com/PapersinPhysics/Lancast8_suspended.doc
also
http://users.softlab.ece.ntua.gr/~kyritsis/PapersinPhysics/Lancast8_suspended.htm
also
http://preveza.teiep.gr/kyritsis/PapersinPhysics/Lancast8_suspended.pdf
1. The Law of levelled physical material reality
1.0 What we consider as physical material reality is subject and conditioned to our development in consciousness our hidden beliefs and our scientific operational competence and development. E.g. in ancient Rome the protons. neutrons, and electrons could not stand a chance to be considered as physical reality or existent at all. What was considered as physical reality was only gross pieces and aggregations of matter made by protons, neutrons, and electrons. Anything else would be shear philosophical or metaphysical.
1.1 After the 19th century we are universally mature enough to accept that any form of material existence consists of elementary indivisibles.
1.2 The content of this law is that all mater does not starts from protons, neutrons and electrons only. What we call traditionally as gravitational field, electromagnetic field, etc is accepted to have energy density in space even inertial density in space (there are classical college physics experiments with the momentum and inertia of the electromagnetic field, and similar in Einstein’s physics for the gravitational field). Therefore these fields have material existence, but they do not consist from protons electrons and neutrons! We would contradict ourselves if we would not assume that they consists too from permanent indivisible particles. Such particles have to be permanent and extremely small (e.g. 10^(-36) times smaller than the electron) otherwise quantum and nuclear physics would have pinned them down and would know them. (e.g. the neutrino that can cross the earth and not hit a single earth’s atom is 10^(-6) times only smaller than the electron. All particles of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics besides the proton, neutron, electron are of very short life duration and not permanent). This material reality of the fields we call the 4th material density. There exist also in a similar way the 5th material density. The content of this law is also that the 3rd material density as well as the 4th and 5th material densities consists from particles. Also that all the material physical reality consists of superposition of such material densities.
1.3 As far as I know our experiments go up to the 4th material density and barely only go up to the 5th material density. But they may as well exist a 6th . As we mentioned at the beginning this depends on the evolution of the civilisation and the consciousness of the human beings in it. An obvious question is why we start counting from 3. This is so, as we are counting the matter that is granulated in to the planets and stars in aggregation as 2nd material density. The next question would be what is the 1st material density. We consider the overall world of galaxies and everywhere that classical light can go as one celestial body or…..particle assuming that there more such particles creating the 1st material density.
1.4 It is obvious from the definition of the 4th material density from the classical fields, that a gas or a liquid of the 4th material density will flow through the net of atoms of a solid body of 3rd material density almost without resistance. Excatly as the electromagnetic waves of your mobile phone do.
2. The Law of Vibration
This Law states that everything in the Universe (e.g. protons, neutrons, electrons of the 3rd material density) vibrates. The spin of protons, electrons, and neutrons has a vibration frequency. The same with an atom that may have many frequencies like a musical chord (which is also the basis of smelling: Our sensing cells of smelling detect the atom’s chord-vibrations ). This holds also for the basic particles of the 4th and 5th the material density. So each material density has its own vibration characteristic frequency. Depending on the vibration source, the vibration wave may propagate in many different material densities with different speeds. In the 4th material density there is also “sound†as compression wave, but it may have the speed of light. It may be tempting to call this 4th density "sound", as quantum psi-waves, but mathematically as waves are different, as in universities are accepted mainly as probability waves of particles of the 3rd density. Still the original informal idea of DeBroglie that any (3rd material density) particle when moving maybe accompanied with a material wave (of the liquid or gaseous 4th density) is also real.
3. The Law of Action
This law in the 3rd material density is known and analysed as the 3 Newtonian laws:
a) The conservation of momentum a) The law of force and acceleration, c) the law of action reaction. Later than Newton scientists proved based on the previous 3 Newtonian laws, the law of conservation of energy. Lagrange and Hamilton were also able to derive the momentum and energy conservation from
the law of stationary action
4. The Law of Correspondence
This Law states that the known classical principles and laws of physics that explain the physical world at the 3rd density- energy, waves, vibration, and motion - have their corresponding principles in the 4th and 5th material density. "As above, so below" was the ancient quote.
5. The Law of Cause and Effect
The contact causalities or particle collision causalities or horizontal causalities that we know in the 3rd material density (e.g. law of action and reaction) hold also in the 4th and 5th material density.
6. The Law of Compensation and Deeper causalities
Besides the horizontal contact causalities within a material layer hold also the vertical causalities among material layers. The top-down flow (from 5th density to 4th, to 3rd density) is relevant to our (in-out) creative abilities.
7. The Law of Attraction
This law is essentially what Newton started studying in his universal attraction (later called gravitation) and his inverse square law. This law can only be fully revealed and the inverses square law explained only if more than the 3rd material density is included. This is the process of discovering the Unified Field Theory which is nothing else than the equations of the gaseous 4th material density. Nevertheless in the 4th material density exist also liquid and solid states.
8. The Law of Perpetual Transmutation of Energy
The material densities (3rd, 4th, 5th) are in continuous energy exchange through contact, friction, vibration, etc. There is a natural flow of energy from the 3rd density to the 4th density through friction of the spinning and rotating protons, neutrons and electrons in an atom. This transfers heat from the 3rd material density and is creating heat in the 4th material density.
9. The Law of Relativity
The content of this law is that the space measurements and time measurements, are attached to a particular material density therefore are relative not absolute. So the space and time as measured in the familiar 3rd material density may not be the same when measured in e.g. the 4th material density.
10. The Law of Polarity
10.0 The content of this law is that as in the 3rd material density there is the emergence of the electric positive, negative and neutral, so is in the 4th and 5th material density. Therefore there are triads of micro-electrons micro-protons, micro-neutrons in the 4th material density and triads of nano-protons, nano-electrons and nano-neutrons in the 5th material density. These triads create these densities as the triad of proton neutron electron creates the familiar 3rd material density.
10.1 In the 3rd material density, it is traditionally described with the system of linear equations of Maxwell’s electricity. What we know today as the Maxwell’s electromagnetic field was called originally by Maxwell himself as the Electro-magnetised aether. Aether is a gas formation of the 4th material density. Nevertheless, if after this law we introduce besides the polarity of electrons, protons, neutrons, the corresponding polarity in the gaseous 4th density (aether) and utilise the non-linear Navier-Stokes equations of the gases (that are derived by the energy and momentum conservation, but now applied after law 3 of action to the 4th material density) we may correct the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism to non-linear equations. This is part of the process of discovering the Unified Field Theory, which is nothing else than the theory of the gaseous 4th material density with its intrinsic polarity.
Remark1: Once we have discovered the Unified Field Theory, the free energy or overunity magnetic devices have full and simple explanation. The same for more overunity devices (e.g. based on Hydrogen or water). Not only they are explained but also understood as forms of renewable energy. They are of course explained and computed within the energy conservation and exchange of the of 3rd and 4th material densities simultaneously. Exclusion of the 4th material density and restriction to the 3rd material density keeps them unexplained and inaccessible to Academic Science explanations.
Remark2: As there is a periodic table of chemical elements at the 3rd material density, so there are different periodic tables of elements in the 4th and 5th material density! It is obvious from the definition of the 4th material density from the classical fields, that a gas or a liquid of the 4th material density will flow through the net of atoms of a solid body of 3rd material density almost without resistance. Excatly as the electromagnetic waves of your mobile phone do.
As we understand there is a lot more from the reality for our science to discover.
11. The Law of subjectivity
Human beings have and are developing their bodies not only in the 3rd material density but also in the 4th and 5th. The classical literature of acupuncture or aetheric energy centres (=the charkas) exists because we have a living and evolving body in the 4th material density. By changing our beliefs about the true reality of our living bodies a new order of identity emerges for us.
12. The Law of Creation
The content of this law is that the physical levelled material reality (and e.g. its protons, neutrons, electrons etc) has been created, in the same way that we consider plants and animals as created.
I always felt that space is filled with a hot fluid. Since this space "condition" is pervasive there are problems becoming relavent to this scource of heat. When a device is devised that exhibits negative entrophy. Like a human beings body then there is a possiblity of becoming relavent to this energy warehouse. In mans quest for hot fusion it was discovered that a magnetically selfpinching plasma displays negative entrophy. It takes rf heating and instead of the expected increase in temperature it becomes cooler. Like a human or any other thing we consider alive it changes chaos into order. Not order degenerating into chaos. We break the laws of thermal dynamics every move we make and every thought we bake.
t
That is right sparks. Thank you for reading
1) I have read articles that explain that although the universal attraction of planets and stars may locally be assessed as entropy increasing, in larger scale, create order out of chaos decreasing the entropy.
2) Also when studying the proofs of how the principle of least action from Langrangian and Hamiltonians of mechanical systems can derive the energy and momentum concervation, it is used only that the derivative is zero. In other words the real law is not the least action but also the maximum action or the indifference equilibrium of action. That is why in the law of action, I stated "stationary action" instead of "least action"
3) In the history of science it is reported the Sir I. Newton had spent many weeks with experiments of melting metals, as he had read in ancient books of Alchemy that metals of the non-organic kingdom are "living" as well as plants but with vast time cycles. If we include the living and sentient life in the physical reality, then there are large areas of reality that the entropy is decreasing and higher order appears.
4) The way for you and your body not to be influenced by the entropy increase of a mechanical device is to focus in to more abstract realms than just material devices. Listen to spiritual psychology, meditate, read books that help, and discuss with non-regressive people. The idea is to "bath" your body with your own consiousness, and awareness. You have to intent what to experience every day. Your subconsious is rooted in your body cells. You reach your cells by reaching through the consious the subconcious.
During July, I found in youtube audio-books from a writter called Barbara Marciniak. ("Bringers of the dawn" and "Earth") I cannot say that I could absorb all that she was saying as it was quite....exotic, but she certainly had a talend in combining the scientific imagination with the right psychology and feelings.
There are also some some sound-healing videos in youtube that remove the stain from the mind empty it and help it tune with the right feelings. I like in particular some with the pythagorean scales. 1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMQOAWeVs0&feature=related
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkWzNdExB-o
Try the audiobook and sound videos.
5) As I stated in the Law 11 of subjectivity all people have and evolve bodies in the 4th and 5th material density. But some may develop also "senses" in the 4th and 5th density, ackowledged by the 3rd density brain. To some of those it may seem imagination or hallucinations. At that stage the importance to the feelings, of the effects of a mechanical device is less severe. It is supposed also that as we meditate and evolve our awareness, the frequency of the spin of protons, neutrons, and electrons in our body increases. Increasing this frequency makes us more alive and less solid. Then the difficulties start to disolve. It helps to be connected with other people of high frequency too.
(Continuing the previous post)
6) Also it seems to me that by consuming mainly raw seeds, raw almonds, raw walnuts etc, fresh fruits, raw vegetables in salads etc, we take in our bodies their 4th and 5th material density counterparts, helping our own 4th and 5th density body to be alive and in good health.
This is probably a deeper reason that fresh fruits and raw vegetables have been recommended by so many as a better healthy choice.
I marvel at my grandchildrens growth. I saw my infant grandaughter figure out that when she thought this that she could move her hand. She would move her hand. Then frown in intense study. Then move it again. This went on for a long time. Then she looked up at me and moved her hand and smiled. It was telepathic more or less she knew that I knew what she had just experienced. We communicate almost telepathically when we are in the prescense of people.
We communicate alot in our body language. The origin of our movement is from the consious to the physical. In a less physical realm origin of movement and movement itself would all remain in the consious.
Nice famility time sparks! Congratulations! You put it right: from the consious to the physical.
A small correction about the almonds and walnuts. Although I do know that the non-organic 5th material density is every where, and that the raw seeds and vegetables do have also organic-living 4th density, I am not sure that there is also organic, besides non-organic, 5th density counterpart in them.
It is supposed that the more advanced the organism the deeper the living-organic body goes in the material densities. Humans do evolve living bodies in the 5th density too, in greater or lesser degree.
But for the 4th density there is also proof even for the plants, of its existence as organic and living. During the decade of the 80's the Scientific American Journal had publish an article with two photos.
1) The 1st photo was an ordinary but detailed photo of the leaf of a tree, where you could see the network of the trichoid vessels of its juices.
2) Then they cut the leaf in half and within a few minutes without delay they photograph it again with the same details, but this time with Kirlian Photography (see wikipedia).
3) It was appearing as "miracle" but in the Kirlian photo you could see the half leaf alright (as 3rd material density), but you could see also as a "ghost" in space (as 4th material density) the rest of the leaf that was cut, again with all the network of the trichoid vessels!
The Kirlian photography, photographs essentially the electric conductivity in space. As the organic 4th density was not yet disolved around the cut part of the leaf, it was captured by its varying electric conductivity in space.
It was a so clear proof of two facts a) the existence of the 4th material density (even before the Aspden gyroscope experiment, and Depalma free fall of rotating bodies in vacuum experiment) b) that 4th density is also organic and most probably controls and has information for the multiplication and functions of the cells and their living cell plasma functions.
I read the article I was amazed and I was wondering if they just published it as a curiosity or if they realised what that was proving!
On the other hand sometimes experimental proofs may wait for almost a century till the majority of the scientist are ready (or are allowed) to accept and believe what the experiment proves. A classical example is the Brownian motion (see wikipedia). The brownian motion was explained and used by A. Einstein in 1905 as a proof for the existence of atoms, and that matter consists from atoms. This article gave him the nobel prize! After 1905 everybody accepted the existence of atoms.But not before.
Still the Brownian motion was discovered by Brown and was known since 1820!
Quote from: DrKCostas on July 15, 2010, 06:45:41 AM
...
All energy of almost all the "free energy devices" or "overunity devices" seems that it comes from the internal energy of this finer gaseous material layer...
There are so many "free energy devices" or "overunity devices" that every body here try to build one but nobody succeeded :).
Where are these devices? Where are the third party duplications?...
In science, theories are based on observations. Before providing fuzzy theories about hypothetical machines, the first point is to show the evidence of their reality.
My research stops in 2002. So the 4-5 free energy devices that I studied are from 1950 to 1998. And they were not called "overunity". Which are these 4-5 that are true, is found in my article in the 1st post.
I wonder if you expect that one of these "overunity" devices will arrive one day free of charge in your door for you to use....or ...study!
I wonder if you have not understood why the discoveries here do not follow the normal and standard procedures:
facilitated and funded research in some University or Industry laboratory, then publication of scientific papers,conferences, then a patent probably, then massive production....etc (in which case still you would expect at least 20 years for the 1st to be widely known.)
The best way to be destructive and regressive to any progress is by enforcing overzealous promotion of conventional theories, especially of those theories that are famous to be incomrehensible and obscure.
Mediocre knowledge of still evolving science, enforced as the absolute eternal final truth, for reasons of magnifying our personal ego and authority, is the worst kind of real scientific ignorance.
If you dot know the real reasons why E. Grey was put in prison, while Reagan had given him National wide prize for the best inventor of the year (it was 70's) for his free energy inventions, and later found dead,
If you do not know why J. Searl was put 2 years in prison, for his free energy and propulsion discoveries, while Universities in UK confirmed all his experiments,
If you do not know why DePalma who had University PhD was threaten that they will burn his hands if he dares to proceed and make production and public his machine,
If you do not understand why the testatika that was running for 20 years and was powering a monastry of 200 monks in Switzerland, while all these years all engineers and visitors could not give academic explenations for the produced effect,
And you do not understand why Galileo was threaten to be tortured if he insists claiming that earth is round and moving (everybody knows that it is flat and not moving, do you feel it moving while walking?)...
Then I am afraid that you understand .....very little... of what it is going on, and better not ask like this, neither read as you say "fuzzy theories" ......about earth moving around the sun.
Quote from: conradelektro on July 25, 2010, 03:51:12 PM
My humble opinion about "overunity devices" and whether one can build them easily.
Let's consider two very interesting technologies that appeared recently:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/ (special gray powder)
http://www.bloomenergy.com (very special chemical as catalyst, very special chemical compounds in the plates)
(Disregarding whether they are overunity or not) it would be extremely difficult to replicate these two technologies. Very special equipment and special manufacturing capabilities are necessary to produce and to use the necessary chemical compounds.
Let's consider as third example a modern transistor. It is almost impossible without very high tech machines to alter a transistor or to build a slightly different one.
From all three examples we can deduce, that it will not be easy to replicate a future overunity or even not overunity technology.
So, the hopes of many people in this forum will probably have to be abandoned. It will not be easy to build and it will not be described in a few videos or publications. A deep understanding of certain known technologies and of at least one completely unknown technology will be necessary (and very special equipment and very difficult to obtain materials and chemicals).
I also suspect (like Dr. Kyritsis), that the answer to future overunity technologies (or to any new technologies) lies beyond or behind the particles which we know today.
Some call it "the fabric of space", which we yet have to discover. The particles we know (and which are taught at the universities today) "swim" in some unknown substance which we yet have to understand. And it can well be that we need a totally new world view (may be without all these particles) to describe it.
And once we understand a bit what lies between everything, we can may be derive new ways to produce energy. Or better said, we might find new ways to "harvest" energy.
In my world view one does not produce energy, one takes it from somewhere. And we might find new places in-between all things known today (in the fabric of space) from where we can take energy.
But all this said, I still think that this forum (overunity.com) offers interesting things, even when they do not work. My attention was drawn to many things which I did not know before. Of course, I also saw a lot of mental sickness, which I have not seen before. But all things together, I am always learning a lot. May be there are better ways to learn about new (and known) things, but I have not found a more entertaining one. Interacting with other people is more entertaining than reading books.
Greetings, Conrad
If my understanding of Quantum Mechanics that "anything in universe exists as one unity in the form of infinite fields." is correct, over unity is obsolete word and "free" energy too. In addition, scientists began to claim our universe is open system interfaced many dimensions.
Instead consuming static materials, it uses the abundant energy in universe relatively speaking.
I'm an average Joe like billions of others on Earth. I gotta work and pay bills. My personal interest over 15 years about aliens/UFOs, metaphysics, you name it, leaded for me to believe in free energy is real! It's fact. Many years ago, Nicola Tesla demonstrated it too. I also collected few scientific papers that collecting energy in vacuum successfully with experimental data.
Free energy device that I'm looking into and waiting for needs to be feasible and practical. The underlying theory must be solid and proven. It gotta be simple and small, do not ask $$$ tools or hard-to-get material or complex processing during the assembly. I can build a complete engine or machine that has 100 pages of instructions. No problem.
The Wright Brothers did 1,000 test flights, endless hours of study and research till they made 1st motor-powered flight in early 1900s. The potential of free energy device is far greater than airplane also it demands higher level of creativity and intuitive about nature itself. I'll doubt it will be invented by an accident and widely spread out.
I know the suppression and punishment from the power group is real. Sigh. Maybe my ego or selfishness is still greater than risking myself for humanity.
Pray and hope,
Here is a rather detailed, updated, and rather complete list of free energy devices in pdf e-book form and also site by Patrick Kelly :
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/
http://www.free-energy-devices.com/
And also for....the psychological adventure of inventors a blog by me
at http://psychologicalkeys.blogspot.com
"Free energy device that I'm looking into and waiting for needs to be feasible and practical. The underlying theory must be solid and proven. It gotta be simple and small, do not ask $$$ tools or hard-to-get material or complex processing during the assembly. I can build a complete engine or machine that has 100 pages of instructions. No problem. "
This is the problem. Such simple device is mostly a product of years of practical and experimental experience and countless broken devices not mentioning money spent ; or a marvel of Divine inspiration.
If I could be a rich man I would pursue to create such device but average Joe (like me) can't be so generous to publish plans of device without any refund. It's not fun, it's a fight.
Ibelieve someone could made such device during one -two days from a bunch of wires and electrnic circuit.40W input 10kW output.Oh, wait a moment... somebody did it already.Tariel Kapanadze.
Case closed.
I appreciate the info about Kapanadze. I was not aware of it.
In fact I was just ready to purchase the plans (for 140$) of David Waggoner engine and generator at http://www.fuellesspower.com/
and build 2 such machines of 6Kwatts for my household.
Any reliable info about him?
P.S. "Case closed" maybe as far as making a simple engine and probably save some money. But as far as the full picture in the civilization is concerned, it has not even started in the Universities. I am a University professor, and the Universities in the world seem to ignore such devices. Some of the decent Universities admit that they have to re-write the equations of electromagnetism ( I assume from linear to non-linear) to account for such devices. But to account fully for magnetic generators and for all overunity devices, they must re-write the Einstein's equations of gravitation too. And I am afraid this would cost a new Nobel prize to a new lucky Physicist. It will take years. Meanwhile we may enjoy at a humble and careful level the benefits of the devices of inspired inventors.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11045.msg291820#new