How Stubblefields Wireless Really Worked.

[joellagace]

I want to clarify that my devices and concepts do not violate the laws of thermodynamics or claim to achieve such. Rather, it utilizes multiple energy sources and manipulations in a clever way. In the case of energy generation such as what this user suggests here, A bit sidetracked from my original topic. ... Multiple energy systems are used to increase the efficiency of energy conversion and transduction, resulting in a greater electrical energy output than what is put into the system as electrical energy alone. This approach is based on well-established principles of physics and engineering and does not involve any kind of perpetual motion or "free energy" I would appreciate it if you could take the time to understand my device and its workings before making any unfounded claims or assumptions.

For all curious about  phenomena around us:
1.   overunity  doesn't exist
2.   the maximum you can get  at the output of any device  is underunity.
      It means if you  deliver to the device or circuit 1W you will get  <1W at output.
3.   that is why Perpetual motion is a nonsense.
4.   anti-gravity doesn't exist.
5.   Energy  or e.g  electrical energy can't be produced or created nor destroyed -energy can only change  its form.
      It means amount of energy in the universe  doesn't change. It is constant.
      Term energy production means only that energy changes its from to the one convenient to us. 
6    Quantum physics is probably the most precise scientific discipline ever devised by humankind.
      https://theconversation.com/seven-common-myths-about-quantum-physics-115029
7.   Radioactivity is not dangerous at all if we think that the gasoline in our car tank is safe.
      In reality basic knowledge  about  the both- is like knowing how to use your kitchen knife safely .
8.   Classical physics doesn't explain quantum physics
      https://iopscience.iop.org/book/mono/978-0-7503-1206-6/chapter/bk978-0-7503-1206-6ch1     
     Great paper   is here  for you to read:
            https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/What-is-the-difference-between-classical-physics-and-quantum-physics.pdf
9.   Ether/Eather  doesn't exist
10. Good and spirituality  is not recognized by physics as physics exists and  is functioning exactly the same with or without any knowledge about "it."
      It means that: physics rejects and ignores all that is non-physics  related.
11. We all are animals - humans  belong to mammals.
12. Free Energy means only  Energy that is for Free. like an  energy from sun, wind, heat as long as it is at no charge 
      and there is no tax on it. For example air and electromagnetic wave is for free, but using air to send electromagnetic wave is regulated and/or needs to be licensed
      By FCC  in USA.
13  Patents  are not for free and they  restrict your use of anything you didn't think as of yet, as possible, or didn't patent yet for 20 years in average.   

I hope it helps.
Happy  Passover, Easter, Ramadan
To all of you
Wesley

[stivep]

I made  intentional misleading statement in point  12  in hope someone will correct me ,but nobody did.

12. Free Energy means only  Energy that is for Free. like an  energy from sun, wind, heat as long as it is at no charge 
      and there is no tax on it. For example air and electromagnetic wave is for free, but using air to send electromagnetic wave is regulated and/or needs to be licensed
      By FCC  in USA.

The correct wording is:
      Free Energy means only  Energy that is for Free. like an  energy from sun, wind, heat as long as it is at no charge 
      and there is no tax on it. For example air and electromagnetic wave is for free, however  sending electromagnetic wave is regulated and/or needs to be licensed
      By FCC  in USA.  Electromagnetic wave  as  quantum physics  phenomena  doesn't need Air nor any other medium  to travel.
Wesley

[stivep]

Multiple energy systems are used to increase the efficiency of energy conversion and transduction, resulting in a greater electrical energy output than what is put into the system

I'm not sure  if I understood your comment  correctly .
No method can deliver more  energy at output than delivered at input.
it means - there is no way to gain energy  at output you can only lose.
But if you don't have to pay for the energy  at input than  you don't care much  what is the  efficiency of your energy conversion apparatus
unless some competition of yours can sale that energy  at output  of their device cheaper.

Niagara Falls  hydroelectric station is an example of  no need to pay for energy at input.
All energy at output is at ZERO COST  means Free Energy, because the cost of operation is lower than gain from sale.
The energy of flowing water there is  greater than energy produced by the turbines so there is lose of energy net.
But owners of Niagara Falls  don't see any losses in their pockets.
Think about it.
No  losses, no maintenance cost, no labor cost, as all of that is paid  by customer of yours and  pure gain  is left in your pocket 24/7

Wesley

[partzman]

"No method can deliver more  energy at output than delivered at input."

Wesley

Wesley,

Are you completely and totally sure of your statement above?  Are you sure that you and others you follow, have tried every combination of topologies that exist in conventional electromagnetics?

Just curious!!

Regards,
Pm

[onepower]

stivep

2. the maximum you can get  at the output of any device  is underunity.
It means if you  deliver to the device or circuit 1W you will get  <1W at output.

This is incorrect and the Conservation of Energy (COE) demands energy cannot be created (over-unity) or destroyed (under-unity) for obvious reasons. If any material thing or circuit was under-unity it would represent an energy sink relative to the surrounding energy. Energy would keep flowing into the imaginary energy sink forcing the surrounding space to become overunity violating the COE.

This is why energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. We cannot get something from nothing nor can we force something into nothing because conceptually they represent the same thing.

3. that is why Perpetual motion is a nonsense.

This is also incorrect for similar reasons. Motion relates to kinetic energy and is subject to the same rules defined by the conservation of energy.

For example, suppose we could remove all apparent motion from an object. The atoms/particles/sub-atomic particles which make up the object are still in perpetual motion because matter cannot be created/destroyed nor the energy associated with it. The energy must always exist as either the motion of the particles or the motion of EM fields transferring energy between particles.

In effect, the universe is like a giant vacuum tube where all particles are constantly in motion and transferring EM wave energy between themselves. The obvious question is, if motion is not perpetual then where did all the energy go?. So a particle slowed down or sped up representing a change in kinetic energy, where did the energy go?. You see, your reasoning fails under even the most basic scrutiny.

AC