Newman machine confirmed as overunity?

[H2earth]

First, nothing about FE/OU technology is "working with traditional electrical theory", If you are, then naturally you will be "quite positive this explanation is wrong".  To quote from Tom Bearden:

"You will never have the answer to the true negative resistor problem or
understand it, until you read the physics literature and study something
beside standard classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering.  Those
disciplines and models completely forbid any COP>1.0 system, and any true
negative resistor is a COP = infinity system. SO WHAT MUST BE CHANGED OR
MODIFIED IN THOSE EM AND EE MODELS, IF ONE IS TO EVEN HAVE A COP>1.0 SYSTEM AT ALL?  Anyone who is not struggling with that problem, has no business
calling himself in the "free energy field".  He's not.  He's automatically
in the "Well, it's not in conventional EE, so I can't understand it" field.

EE is based on a very archaic and seriously flawed EM model that does not
permit COP>1.0 circuits and systems.  Much better electrodynamics models
have long been available in particle physics -- for the simple reason that
the standard EE does not adequately describe nature.

The answer to many of your questions and speculations are already there in
particle physics, and have been for a long time.  But one has to read the
physics literature.  Sadly, most of the "free energy" community will not
read the literature, will not go look up and read a cited reference or
quotation, etc. and try to understand it.  So there exists a "mindset" in
the free energy community, which largely regurgitates classical
electrodynamics and standard electrical engineering, BOTH MODELS of which
specifically prohibit COP>1.0 EM systems in the first place!"

Attached are two scientific papers that Col. Bearden and Dr. Myron Evans have published in a major, peer-reviewed physics journal, which detail how the assumptions you are working from are in error.

The hypothesis stated in that part of the paper is that the ions in the battery take 'longer to get moving' and thus an uncontrolled build up of electrons occurs on the positive terminal (cathode) of the battery.

My qualm with this is simple: If electrons feel that it is nessessary to flow down that wire to that terminal to begin with then the charge on that terminal must already be lower. (There must already be a voltage potential present between the switch and the terminal.) 

So how can the author claim that the ions haven't started moving yet if the ions are responsible for creating the potential which starts the electron migration in the first place?

There is a charge placed on that terminal, it is just switched away before electrons can begin to flow.  Applied voltage potential translates instantaneously
, while electrons muck about at the speed of light, and ions dawdle even longer.  These delay states enable work to be performed by the circuit without it ever being in a fully closed state.  Whether in the Tesla Switch 12v battery device, or the Newman Commutator, or the Meyer WFC, the potential is being utilized to move electrons and create current, without itself being discharged in doing so, since no fully closed circuit ever exsits among the potential carrying and current carrying elements in these systems.

As Bearden puts its, as long as you maintain that "Source Dipole" - the voltage potential difference - and dont short it out by stupidly closing the circuit, you can extract unlimited free energy from the quantum vacuum.  EVERY ONE of these FE/OU devices that is legitimate is using this same phenomenology.

In addition: your electron source is also from the same battery and therefore from the same chemical reaction. So the electrons are being supplied only as fast as they can be consumed.

If anything: shorting the battery directly like this would cause a drop in current as the ions struggled to carry out the chemical reaction fast enough. But a change in voltage would most likely not be present.

If the proposed increase in voltage were to occur: unsolicited chemical reactions might take place inside the battery and end up damaging it or causing it to explode.

If you think my analysis is wrong please point me in the right direction.

In actual tests of the Tesla Switch with new 12v car batteries, no drop in current is obseved from the load, nor is the overall voltage among the four batteries depleted.

Please explain how an electron can be "consumed".

In the Water Fuel Cell, even with NO electrons admitted to the water from the [Insulated] Cathode, and with the resonance tuned such that the current is inhibited as dielectric breakdown occurs, a single electrode discharge from the water into the Anode rips electrons from the water, making Hydroxy without the use of any externally supplied current.  In fact, because the Anode switches off before all (or even most) of the electrons thus liiberated by Voltage can get to it, a second Electron Extraction Circuit is used in the WFC, which comes on after the pulse, and before the next one.   The EEC drains the free electron current which arises in solution, from ionization and dissociation events.  This free electron current is substantial, and has driven lights, motors, fans, and pumps in WFC experiments.  The current is taken from the valence electrons released in the water, and does not come from the Cathode.

The Newman machine is an ideal rotary mechanical version of the Tesla Switch, configured to amplify the radiant enegy (ZPE/QVE) from each pulse.  A Newman machine most certainly does fry batteries and blow capacitors, just as you surmise; the unamplified Tesla Switch, by itself (without coils and magnets), does not.  The investigations of switching energetics by Bill Alek http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/MultiSparkGap/MultiSparkGapExp.htm and Dr. Peter Lindeman's study of the Gray Tube confirm that its the switching that entrains the outside energy, not the copper coils or magnets or electrolyte solution in any of these systems, they are amplification peripherals to what is really going on.  In the case of the Newman machine, its the Commutator.

However, since the WFC really *IS* a Capacitor that you want to 'blow' - repeatedly - that amplification would not be a problem if you married the two devices (NEM/WFC), it would be the desired effect.

If we all dropped our preconceptions about these all being different systems, and just connected the dots, we'd have working FE/OU product hardware in the marketplace within 12 months.  How did we become factionalized among "the dynamo people", "the transformer people", and those of us, such as myself, with "Water on the Brain"?

Since Stephan has a nicely done Newman machine at his disposal, I've been hoping he'd apply the RF output to a concentric tube set, and start making Hydroxy with it... 

[yandros]

H2earth,

What I was driving at here is this:
You have three observed electrical phenomenon: the Newman motor, Tesla's switching battery (which I am yet to research) and your water cell (which I know absolutely nothing about.) All this paper offers is a hypothesis based on conventional electrical theory. It deals with electrons, potentials and standardized components. Then to make it all work, it seems the author has just taped on this little bit at the end about the build up in voltage sucking energy from the vacuum.

I hope you realize that Tesla had a completely different conception of electricity. He treated it as a fluid. To assume electrical energy is just the movement of electrons is, in my opinion, folly. Particularly when we are dealing with a phenomenon which contradicts the most fundamental principles of the conventional theories.

You probably are not terribly interested in dealing with philosophy, but it is my opinion that you need to have the correct mindset coming into these things otherwise you end up with a flawed understanding and get nowhere because your hypotheses continually fail.

I don't believe the hypothesis (about the mechanism for the battery switching) stated in that paper is correct.

But I do agree with you that there are some patterns arising between electrical free energy devices. It seems that in all the ones which have been shown to work to some degree there is this 'stopping and starting' or 'kicks' as the TPU people call them where the electricity is stopped abruptly and an amount of energy, seemingly from nowhere, is radiated from the wire.

I will be doing my own tests with the TPU people, and perhaps with the water cell when I get around researching it, as soon as I can acquire a decent oscilloscope. If you think you have made a startling discovery then please draw up plans and build something to test your hypothesis!

[H2earth]

Yandros,


Yes these three FE/OU devices work on the same "start/stop" principle, whether using solid state switching, a rotary switch (commutator), or the WFC resonance which inhibits current flow through precise phase differential at high voltage.

Again, Please explain how an electron can be "consumed".

It is Tesla's conception of electricity that is at the root of all of this.  Dr. Peter Lindeman found the correlation between the WFC, E.V. Gray, and Tesla.  I would urge you to read/view his book/video, "Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity".  His observations have been confirmed by the H2earth Institute, and we have also found the identicalities between the WFC circuitry and the MEG and Newman machines.   Very shortly, we expect to publish a more complete depiction of the WFC than is given in the Lawton/Kelly (D14) document.

Bearden, Bedini, Newman, Meyer (and many others) are all doing the same thing when you look closely enough.  When all the dots are connected, perfecting an FE/OU based power system will become obvious to everyone studying the issue.

[Humbugger]

Yes, in some test it was producing around 135 % efiiciency. But the main output is in the RF burst and it is hard to capture and convert. I will try to use the new principle from the Steven Mark thread to see if it can be used by coupling it to a 90 degree coil wound around it...

@Stephan

When you say you have personally confirmed the Newman machine as overunity, above, you mention 135% efficiency.  Is that based on including this "majority" of output energy which is RF-based and thus hard to capture and convert?  If so, how was that energy measured? 

Can you tell us a bit more about the specific measurement procedures you used to confirm the device's overunity performance?  I'm surprised no one else has asked for any details about your confirmation procedure.  It's a pretty important announcement!  It was almost a year ago, too.  Any more recent, more refined measurements?  Thanks...

Humbugger...looking for reasons to believe

[hartiberlin]

You can study this here at the end, where it says:
My measurement results:
http://overunity.com/newman2/

It included all the energies inside the Newman machine,
but not the RF energy, just the coil wire heating and mechanical output
versus the electrical input.

But the error range was pretty big, as the measurement method
could not be refined at this stage at that time.