A general perspective for scientific explanation of almost all overunity devices

[WilbyInebriated]

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?

[DrKCostas]

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])
   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

[conradelektro]

@ 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

[DrKCostas]

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 vacuum”

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 ……”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 “aether”.
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.

[Tempest]

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 idea”. 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.