ZERO INPUT, 10 degrees thermal output...Yes,...genuine free energy

[CycleGuy]

MH
so the Black sock covering the Ball in the photo above is not adequate to stop this reflection?

Not likely.

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/fujifilm-x-t1-infrared/

But this new camera has one big difference: It might be able to see through clothing. Some clothing, at least. That's because it's able to "see" infrared light, which is invisible to the human eye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhbhM_HtUag
You'll note it sees through a thick sweater and bra, and through jeans.

Of course, that ends this discussion as everyone on the forum goes to hack their iPhone to see through clothes. LOL

[CycleGuy]

then youre blind, clueless, and dumb to boot. 


GYROMAGNETIC PRECESSION is a very WELL KNOWN ENTITY


also known as the larmor frequency,    (hint hint hint  FREQUENCY = MOVEMENT)

Go research, or dont, ..........I dont give a damn.

http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg411299/#msg411299

Protons precess coherently when in the presence of a powerful dielectric field. The frequency at which the precession occurs is called the Larmor frequency. This causes an oscillating and precessing magnetic field that can be measured.

{sigh} The magnetic field from the nucleal protons is about 1000 times weaker than the magnetic field from the half-shell electrons and is not coherent, and thus doesn't contribute to the aggregate magnetic field experienced outside the pole faces... so unless Mr. Wheeler is now arguing that all permanent magnets are actually approximately 1000 times weaker than measured, he's wrong on this contention, as well... a product of his denial of the existence of electrons.

Wait... wasn't it Mr. Wheeler who said that "Mother Nature does not do particles or Quantum BS"? And isn't he the guy who says positive and negative charges don't exist? Yeah, he did and he is... so his protons (a positively charged particle) must not exist, just as he claims an electron doesn't exist... making his description above completely nonsensical in relation to his theory. That's got to be quite an embarrassment for him, to have to fall back on charged particles while denying their existence. 

Besides which, the protons cannot precess to the magnitude he claims unless the entire nucleus precesses (the protons being bound together with neutrons via the strong nuclear force (which Wheeler also denies exists)), which is inordinately difficult to get the nucleus to do, given its relatively larger mass, so his claim that the protons are (and thus the nucleus is) precessing at the Larmor frequency and thus creating the magnetic field of a magnet is an utter impossibility.

Not to mention that precession (whether we're talking about Wheeler's purported nucleal precession or electron precession in orbit about the nucleus) would not cause coherent magnetism, it would tend to damp it by causing an essentially random net magnetic moment. Electrons rejecting as an aggregate (much like a Casimir cavity does) out-of-phase QVZPE field modes longer than the Compton radius and thus damping electron precession (and thus making the electron orbit less chaotic) is part of the reason for the magnetic field's coherency. So the small amount of precession that a nucleal proton can do, which results in it throwing off Larmor radiation to balance energy in-flow from the QVZPE field and out-flow via Larmor radiation, is not coherent, and thus has no net magnetic moment.

Are his protons (ie: his one-particle which can seemingly randomly switch back and forth between neutron-form and proton-form (in the process changing size and weight by many orders of magnitude), because remember, he insists that all matter consists of one particle, a bastardization of Circlon Theory's "Neutron as Proton and Electron Egg" theory... without the electron (because he denies the existence of electrons... of course, he then goes on to deny all particles (to quote him, "Nope, mother nature doesnt do particles and quantum BS."), saying it's all "fields within fields upon fields across fields"... so it's understandable that he's confused as concerns this topic.) throwing off Larmor radiation? Because it can be demonstrated that they do not do so to any great extent... because while the proton is a charged particle, a nucleal proton is not in motion (it's locked into place in the atoms of the magnetic material, remember), nor is it following a curved path (and thereby undergoing acceleration), the three main requirements for Larmor radiation.

Oh, that's right, he claims the magnet is throwing off "inertial dielectricity", which is his redefinition of "the opposite of rest" and "static electricity"... but if this were the case, one could capture this "static electricity in motion" thrown off by his magical magnets and put it to good use powering electrical equipment without having to rely upon relativistic space-time compression and thus perceived charge compression of the electrons in the wire, as is done in conventional generators.

Well, what do you know, Mr. Wheeler has single-handedly given the world free energy, and all it took was redefining every single known definition for long-known scientific phenomena, and reordering every single molecule in the universe. 

His contention is brought about because Mr. Wheeler denies the existence of negative charges and thus electrons, backing him into a nonsensical view of how atoms work to produce magnetism, a view that is diametrically opposed to reality. Of course, his denial of charged particles (on both the "charge" and the "particle" terms) necessitates that he also denies the existence of protons... so he's now arguing against himself, while tacitly admitting he believes the universe to be nothing but fields and neutrons. 

In addition, it appears as though he's redefined "precession" to mean "rotation":
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg413105/#msg413105
TinselKoala posted a video:
https://youtu.be/7SeVWSO_wpg
showing off-center torque brought about by a magnet attracted to a ferromagnetic piece through a convex lens... having nothing to do with magnetism except for magnetism providing the clamping force which kept the contact point of the magnet off-center and thus allowed it to spin, much as is shown here:
https://youtu.be/ZZEFTEEHOPU
although they incorrectly attribute the effect to magnetic vortex... just as Mr. Wheeler does here:
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg413107/#msg413107
He even made two videos "explaining" that very simple phenomenon incorrectly... then went on to say:
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg413113/#msg413113

that is STILL precession however.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precession

Mechanics. the motion of the rotation axis of a rigid body, as a spinning top, when a disturbing torque is applied while the body is rotating such that the rotation axis describes a cone, with the vertical through the vertex of the body as axis of the cone, and the motion of the rotating body is perpendicular to the direction of the torque.

There is no precession occurring in TinselKoala's video.

So Mr. Wheeler seems to be confused about quite a lot.

[CycleGuy]

I posted quote 1 some time ago, and MOST 'speculation' here (and elsewhere) was that people assumed Tesla was talking about his AC motor / invention rather than the discovery of reciprocating / rotating force/magnetic field divergences and convergences.


Quote number #2 as found in another location entirely,.........by any reckoning seems to dispel the notion that Tesla placed or MEANT to imply his huge pride was invested in his AC MOTOR invention/ discovery RATHER THAN the discovery of reciprocating magnetic field divergences-convergences.


AS SUCH Tesla's greatest pride (if you will) seems to stem from his grasp of the fundamental nature of magnetism itself RATHER THAN his AC motor invention which harvested this force and power.




QUOTE 1
Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
Toward the end of the interview, we asked Tesla which arena of science most appealed to him. While we expected him to mention radios and airplanes, the world wireless system, It was not the induction motor; instead it was the discovery of the principle that preceded the induction motor, the "rotating magnetic field". Tesla answered: "rotating magnetic fields were dear to my heart. When I made the discovery of the rotating magnetic field, I was a very young man. The revelation came after years of concentrated thought and it was my first great thrill. It was not only a valuable discovery capable of extensive practical applications. It was a REVELATION OF NEW FORCES AND NEW PHENOMENA unknown to science before".
"No", Dr. Tesla said with some feelings, "I would not give my rotating magnetic field discovery for a thousand inventions, however valuable, designed merely as mechanical contraptions to deceive the eye and ear!"
Then saying: "A thousand years hence, the telephone and the motion picture camera may be obsolete, but the principle of the rotating magnetic field will remain a vital, living thing for all time to come." - Nikola Tesla
Article: "A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future" (Popular Science Monthly)



QUOTE 2 (parenthesis mine)

"No amount of praise is too much to bestow upon Edison for his (lamp / bulb), but all he did was wrought ('work') in known and passing forms. What I contributed constitutes a new and lasting edition to human knowledge. Like his lamp, my induction motor may be discarded and forgotten in the continuous evolution of the (electric motor?) arts, but my rotating field with its marvelous phenomena and manifestations of force (from magnetism) will last as long as science itself" - Nikola Tesla
New York World Nov. 29, 1929, p. 10 col. 4-5. To the Editor of the World





If you dont understand what Tesla is SAYING in quote 2, then I would say you were a goddamn idiot.


POINT BEING, Teslas pride is NOT HIS AC MOTOR, but the discovery of rotating (reciprocating) magnetic 'fields' (divergence)


~~~~~~

In another ilk, I love this one I found.

"Seldom if ever has an original ideal of consequence been born in an elaborate laboratory. The egg of science is laid in the nest of solitude. True, it maybe later be incubated, hatched and nursed in a million dollar laboratory. No big laboratory is needed in which to think. Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind. Be alone! This is the secret of invention; be alone, that is where ideas are borne." – Nikola Tesla

Are you now contending that Mr. Tesla was stating that he'd discovered a rotating vortexual magnetic field at the pole face of a magnet? Care to cite his work in that regard? Your failure to do so will stand as your tacit admission that you know you're wrong in this regard.

Strange, then, Mr. Wheeler, that Tesla's reference to his rotating magnetic fields is embodied in his patent for an AC induction motor, isn't it? Stranger still that a rotating magnetic field is the means by which an AC induction motor works, as well... and Tesla speaking of his AC induction motor in relation to his rotating magnetic fields, stating that while the AC induction motor may be obsolesced at some future date, the underlying concept of its operation could never be.

Tesla was credited with conceiving of the AC induction motor a full three years before Ferraris... so methinks you're wrong. Likely a result of your yet again glomming onto whatever information you think supports your hobby theory and twisting it tortuously so it fits into your strange little world.... a patchwork of bastardized adopted, co-opted and thieved theories held together with flopsweat and flecks of spittle as you scream at the top of your lungs in your one-man echo chamber.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/RMFpatent.PNG/320px-RMFpatent.PNG

[CycleGuy]

the simplex nature of magnetic divergence against the HIGHEST order of LOWEST MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY (= diamagnetic) .........eludes you.

All force (energy) is the loss of inertia.       There is no energy without the loss of inertia.


Force without loss of inertia ( free energy, overunity).......does not exist.

You've compounded conceptual error upon conceptual error in building your hobby theory, Mr. Wheeler. In fact, you've compounded the conceptual errors of Circlon Theory's "neutron as proton and electron 'egg'" sans the electron with your compounded conceptual errors... and as you go, it becomes more and more apparent that you are thoroughly confused.

From your book:

An atomic explosion, of which all matter is still present and not converted (contrary to Einstein and wholly backed by Tesla) there is a loss of inter-atomic inertia. The uranium, plutonium, or tritium are still within the mushroom cloud. All of the original components needed to reconstruct the transformed atoms to their initial nuclear states are speeding away in all directions and could, in principle, be reassembled back into the original nuclei.

From Circlon Theory:

It is believed that when an atomic bomb explodes, matter is transformed into enormous amounts of energy. This is not true. After the explosion, all of the original matter still exists. All of the protons, electrons, and neutrons making up the uranium, plutonium, or tritium are still within the mushroom cloud.

From your book:

"Contrary to empirical phenomena and objects which are in motion and are denoted to have 'inertia' and likewise its opposite being 'rest'"

Wow... where to start with this one... objects in motion are denoted to have 'inertia'... but then, so are objects at rest. What an object at rest does not have is momentum, which is a means of measuring that object's motion.

The opposite of "rest" is not "inertia", as an object has inertia whether it is at rest or it is moving (inertia being defined as the tendency to resist changes in an object's state of motion, even if that 'state of motion' is the state of being at rest)... the opposite of "rest" is "motion", quantified via "momentum"... one would think this would be obvious.

Inertia doesn't really have an inverse, it's not a transferable property... when you push on an object, you don't impart any inertia to it nor receive any inertia from it. The only time an object's inertia changes is when the mass of that object changes, for massive objects.

For massless entities, given that energy and momentum are proportional under the General Relativity rule (laid out in equation form below), the only time a massless entity's inertia changes is when the frequency of that entity changes or the direction of that entity changes... the energy-momentum equivalency for massless entities is the reason black holes were predicted to exist before we actually empirically observed any, why gravity can bend light (gravitational lensing), and why light under the influence of gravity changes frequency (blue-shifts as it goes down the slope of a gravity well, red-shifts at it climbs out of that gravity well).

You'll note that the expansion of the universe amounts to the "smoothing out" of the space-time fabric... imagine it as a series of wrinkles in a fabric over which a photon is traveling... as a photon travels down a gravitational well, it gains energy and blue-shifts... during the time it's in that gravity well, the universe has expanded and that gravity well has been "smoothed out" a bit, thus the climb back out of that gravity well isn't as steep as was the entry, so the photon loses less energy climbing back out of the gravity well than it received going in and thus red-shifts less than it blue-shifted. This occurs also for the gravitational "hills" in the wrinkled fabric of space, in the opposite manner... it takes more energy getting up the hill than the photon receives coming back down it... this contributes to the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, causing the CMB to appear uneven. It's known as the Sachs-Wolfe Effect.

Einstein laid out the mass-energy equivalency concept via E=mc², but that's incomplete. It doesn't take into account massless entities. It's only valid for massive objects. In 1905 Einstein derived an equation that works in all situations:
E²=P²c²+m²c⁴.

He also figured out that the energy of a photon isn't governed by its mass or its velocity (like matter), but instead is governed entirely by f, it's frequency: E=hf, where h is Planck's constant.

For light, m=0, so E=Pc (energy and momentum are proportional). Notice that massless entities can never have zero momentum, since something with zero mass and zero energy isn't something, it's nothing. This is just another way of saying that light can never be stationary. It's also a way of saying that everything (massive or massless) has frequency.

In the case of an object with mass m, that isn't moving (P=0), you then get E=mc².

Given that Mr. Wheeler states that there is no mass-energy equivalency in his book by comparing an atomic explosion to the unwinding of clock springs, Mr. Wheeler probably also denies that when TNT explodes, there is a quantifiable loss of mass converted to energy (other than the energy released via the chemical reaction), to the tune of approximately 0.47e^-10 kg per original kg of TNT, which is able to be stated thusly:

"In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to 1/c² times the amount of energy released."

Note that the statement above says all interactions... we were able to figure out the mass-energy equivalency via nuclear reactions first, because they yield the highest change in mass per interaction, but the same holds true for any process which releases energy. It's just that for non-nuclear interactions, the mass-energy equivalency is so low as to be practically immeasurable.

In Mr. Wheeler's universe, radiation (energy sans matter) could not exist... as this is the byproduct of nuclear reaction... but then, I'm guessing neither Mr. Wheeler nor the proponents of Circlon Theory have stopped to ponder just what radiation really is.

Nor did they stop to consider that even a chemical explosion results in an EMP... a "blast" of energy in the form of magnetic flux. It's how flux compression generator bombs (FCGs) work, a technology that's been known since the 1950s. If no mass is converted to energy, where did the EMP come from, given that according to Wheeler and Circlon Theory, all the matter remains intact? Remember, it's a chemical explosion, there are no nuclear changes in binding energy, thereby removing nuclear binding energy as a potential source of the EMP.

According to Mr. Wheeler, since in his universe there is no mass-energy equivalency, there can therefore be no unstable elements that transmute (fission) in attempting to reach their lowest energy state (said unstably high energy states forced upon those elements by the highly energetic conditions of an exploding supernova transmuting those elements from iron by adding energy to them that was converted to mass via nuclear reaction)... therefore there can be no transmutation, no fission, no fusion, the Periodic Table must be a fantasy land of made-up elements, particle accelerators must be a big lie, nuclear reactors must be powered by pixie dust, and Soddy and Rutherford were just hallucinating. 

The above absolutely refutes your "All force (energy) is the loss of inertia. There is no energy without the loss of inertia." contention, Mr. Wheeler. Do keep in mind you'll not be contesting my words, you're contesting reality. Thus, my qualifications and experience matter little. What matters is that you and your hobby theory are diametrically opposed to reality, your hobby theory's tenets can be proven to result in a universe that could not exist, and thus, the onus is upon you to provide proof of your contentions... and proof does not consist of your profanity, referring to your own fallacious reasoning, or ticking off your "accomplishments" in a desperate attempt at appealing to authority, while attempting to set yourself up as that authority... you are not. You are merely a guy with a hobby theory that stands in stark contrast to reality, clownishly proving that you don't have the chops to back your theory up.

Now, Mr. Wheeler, before you begin your usual foot-stomping displays of vitriol, I suggest you address the numerous concerns as regards your testing protocols, and come clean as to the conditions of your demonstration, as well as listening to those who have superior knowledge in areas you so obviously are found wanting... and they are numerous.

[CycleGuy]

"peak flux" meaningless BS,  there is a non contact INDUCED CHARGE DUMPED thru the formed magnet-TO-be.

There is an ENORMOUS qualitative difference between PM made by an electromagnet and and one created from another magnet
You LYING FUCK,.........

while BOTH can achieve the same GAUSS rating, one is VERY VERY easy to reverse polarity on afterwards AND lose its gauss rating  (the one created with a PM),...... the other, NOT.

Polarized surface gauss readings DO NOT READ or REGISTER, or GIVE INFORMATION as to the inherent increased (or lack thereof) capacitance of the MAGNET BEING MEASURED IN GAUSS

idiot

In fact, it is, non contact induction is DUMPED directly into the Pre-magnet

"DIRECTLY" has no bearing on CONTACT or NON CONTACT

Or stick your fucking head in a MICROWAVE and tell us how NON CONTACT feels.

Wireless power transfer is still in your "no fucking clue" part of your brain.

{emphasis above mine}

Picowatt just explained how inductance wasn't the effect used in magnetizing a pre-magnet, Mr. Wheeler. Perhaps you were unable to understand reality because you've so altered your hobby theory's tenets to be at right angles to reality that reality cannot be understood from within its confines. That speaks volumes to how flawed your hobby theory is.

Further, you demonstrate above that you really have no concept of how magnets work... once magnetized beyond saturation, no matter the manner used, magnets of the same material will experience the same intrinsic magnetic hardness, or resistance to demagnetization... in other words, the magnetic domains care not how they are magnetized. A magnet made using electrical current through magnetizing coils will have just as much intrinsic magnetic hardness as a magnet made from a permanent magnet assuming both magnets were subjected to the saturation conditions in which a similar number of magnetic domains were able to be aligned.

Have you forgotten what you were taught right here on this forum about the Barkhausen Effect and its underlying cause? Have you never looked at a magnetic hysteresis diagram, Mr. Wheeler? Do you not understand its implications in creating a magnet?

And you hold yourself out as some sort of prophet of magnets, when you lack even this most basic, grade school knowledge? Really, Mr. Wheeler.

You may now resume your foot-stomping tirade in lieu of providing any actual proof to back up the tenets of your hobby theory, Mr. Wheeler. Just know that you're fooling no one. I'd ask why you bother, but that appears to be answered by the fact that you've backed yourself into a corner with your silly little hobby theory, and your far-too-overblown ego won't let you admit you're wrong.