You’re in the pocket of Big Descriptive Linguistics.
I missed the thread last year. But this was the bumpety-dump:
Wow! Free electricity is peanuts compared to this. I can hardly wait for what he’s prepared if the crowd demands an encore!
How would you distinguish novel thoughts and devices from that era from the work of unscrupulous fraudsters?
You do understand it is possible to fool people into believing quite a lot, don’t you?
Whoosh City!
That billion dollars isn’t free, you have to pay taxes on it. Can you imagine how many millions you’d have to pay to the government? Far too expensive to have that much money.
And once you have fame and publicity, there’s the comely youth who continually try to woo you. The constant attention drains even the most sociable person.
Instead, I took the easier route of earning my physics PhD and then retiring on the monthly Cartel check. Just have to do the occasional suppression of innovation to keep the hush money coming him. It’s a great life!
The physicists stole the whole system from the Stratford-upon-Avon Tourist Board.
…since they concern only the repercussions of innovation (hardly uncommon at that), not the motivation behind it which is progress. Don’t we want to grow and not lag behind other countries who may not be so wealthy or popular, such as are we, to worry about fame, fortune or taxation?
They just want their lights to keep burning or burn at all!
I may not be preaching to the right crowd.
But you knew that, already, right?
But at least you’re well meaning as is everyone else, here, at this board.
… that those facts are always taught to us rather than some other version.
Personally, I have to agree with Roberta Ballantine whose theory, and evidence, points to Christopher Marlowe.
Popcorn is popping.
Someone get the beer.
We need volunteers for the revealing swimwear.
Tris
The works of Shakespeare were not written by Marlowe, but actually by six carpenters named William Shakespeare. It was all a scam to get jobs building the Globe.
…every theory is an extrapolation from facts (aka, observation). Hence, established opinion is a byproduct of consensus. I don’t have your agreement, but why should that bother me? I did my own homework, gathered my own set of theories emanating from what I consider to be reputable role models in this field, and then modified their theories, ever so slightly, to develop them a little further.
Eric P. Dollard, Jim Murray, Dmitri Mendeleev, Edward Leedskalnin, and Democritus, … these are the people I cherish most when it comes to electrodynamic theory.
But I’m discovering that physics gives the best account of itself if it relegates itself to nuclear physics, alone, since therein does E=MC^2 prevail.
But outside the nucleus of the atom, I find their theories of electrodynamics fraught with fraudulent statements.
Take, for example, attempting to apply that famous equation to explain the consumption of electricity when no copper gets exploded and no iron ever melts. Nor do any of these material substances turn to ash, either, except as resulting from too much electricity traveling through a wire or magnetizing an iron core of a coil. Only then does consumption of materials make any sense.
Consumption of a battery’s chemistry is not the whole circuit. It’s only a fraction of a circuit. The remaining portion is ignored for its value of contributing to a circuit’s amplification unless we merely call it a common sensical amplification of input versus its output (such as audio amplification). Nothing new, here. But even with audio amplification, we still cling to the notion that what applies to nuclear physics also applies to electrodynamics.
So, where’s the consumption limited to?
E=MC^2 – ergo, the mass of an atomic bomb. Nuclear fusion and fission is aptly portrayed by this equation, but not electrodynamics.
True, the mass of a copper coil and the mass of the iron core of a coil do count for something, but not according to that equation since that equation is intended to account for energy converting into mass, not the mass which is hosting energy, nor hosting energy whose sojourn is merely for a tenuous duration.
A true accounting of electrodynamics should account for a circuit’s interactions with its environment. No circuit is isolated.
Take the electrostatic lines of force, for example.
Each atom has an electrostatic line of force linking one atom with at least one other atom somewhere else in the universe of atoms. And I say, “at least” one other atom. Although, I suspect the electrostatic interconnection of atoms is more like a neural network in that each atom has an infinite number of electrostatic lines of force connecting itself with every other atom – the difference lying in the strength of each connection will vary among them and vary over time.
This makes the whole fabric of Creation a voltage gradient, topographic map of the universe — just like the body as described by Dr. Robert Otto Becker, MD in his book, “The Body Electric”, derived from hundreds of successful experiments turning regeneration of amputated limbs of lab rats on and off at his pleasure to see how well he could control the process outside of the natural regenerative ability of salamanders which he had studied in the beginning of his research.
Add the good doctor to my list of role models.
…you would have picked up a copy of Roberta’s book and understood that Marlowe was evading execution for his scandalous exposes of a certain church person whom Marlowe held to be fraudulent. And this expatriation was given full approval by the Queen, herself, to whom Marlowe was to report back to from time to time and give a full report of his latest activities. Marlowe acted as a spy roaming about on foreign soil creating his literary works using straightforward English hiding his messages in each and every poem, play, etc., using the various tools of spies, such as: ciphers, and other secret methods of encryption common at the time and still honored and cherished by the British (anagrams, acrostics, etc.). And not merely single layers of encryption, but multilayered in most cases.
What if I’m waiting for the crowd to “own” this knowledge. Then, I won’t have to be the only one carrying it around to be laughed at and scorned, but instead, blend in with everyone else!
Any word, at all.
Proof of theory depends upon the context to which it applies.
If nuclear physics is the only domain in which energy OUT has any merit to energy IN, then I am willing to leave the physicists alone to their endeavors.
But this does not apply to a circuit’s interaction with its environment since the forces which comprise electricity are not measurable. They are merely inferable from our observations.
And these forces do not confine themselves to the circuit, alone, but freely travel into and out of a circuit contributing to its energy values which we measure, but side-stepping what we contribute: battery, aerial, various resistances and their losses, etc.
Take the electromotive force for example. Unless I’ve missed something, there is no tool I can go out and purchase to measure this value. It has to be calculated from existing data. The same applies to the magnetomotive force.
Current is not the magnetomotive force despite the role which the magnetomotive force plays in the causation of current to occur. But it’s more complicated than just that. There are other factors to consider whenever measuring current and what that measurement is telling the observer.
The same applies to the measurement of voltage to help us in our inquiry into the electromotive force within a circuit.
I think you have it backwards.
The legitimate concern should not be whether or not I can prove anything, but whether or not any theory will allow for the derivations of experience, namely: our opinions. For if our theories do not allow for certain perspectives, then why should anyone bother to research those perspectives to discover anything new? This statement is a straightforward derivation from popular methods of carrying out experimentation and research in this field.
I’m trying to be expansive in my outlook tolerating what I know to be true derived from my own observation while allowing for traditional opinions provided that neither my outlook, nor the conventional model, encroaches upon each other to the extent that the existence of either one is threatened.
…another link to an outside reference pointing to me…
A Theoretical Explanation of How Free Energy Operates in our Universe
This book explains free electrical energy in terms of simple logic plus a few well-known laws of science. This is a companion to my other book, entitled: “Extending the Range of Electric Vehicles by Maximizing their Amp-Hours”.
I am not a physicist. I am not an electrical engineer. I am an independent researcher interested in investigating subjects which we tend to overlook and misunderstand. Both the specialist (the engineer in this case) and the lay person are guilty of misrepresenting the situation to themselves and each other. I’m here to correct these grievous errors. So, here goes…
Twenty years ago, I studied the Golden Ratio in the context of Planetary Anthropology. Now, my task has been to see if I can improve our cultural assumption that an electric vehicle must run exclusively on batteries. There is historical precedence for detaching our EV’s from the electric outlet. I take a modified approach by merely extending the range per charge-session of an electric vehicle so that less energy from the grid is needed to drive our electric cars. I use an electronic simulator to justify my point of view, plus knowledge gained from studying: Eric P. Dollard, Dmitri Mendeleev, and Edward Leedskalnin.
To counter anyone’s argument against what I am proposing, consider this…
A bunch of attorneys wrote the Physicist’s Conservation of Energy Law. And then Einstein went and misrepresented that law to us by giving us a false sense of enlarged difficulty as to how to play with it requiring a huge government grant for nuclear physics experiments when my simple circuit accomplishes it.
Like any good attorney, the truth is hidden in plain sight. Ergo, it has a loop hole in it…
It’s not as complicated as Einstein has led us to believe. When performing mind-blowing time dilation thought experiments using a pair of twins and sending one away in a rocket at nearly the speed of light, no such fantasy is required. The following illustrates how easy it is to “beat” this law.
Shifting the voltage versus the current sine waves of A/C electricity is sufficient enough to dilate time RELATIVE TO EACH WAVE BY COMPARISON TO EACH OF THE OTHER WAVE’S VIEWPOINT.
Isn’t that what the two twins experiment was all about? Shifting their points of view regarding their individual time-frames relative to one another? !!!
And if the shift skips past a mere 90 degrees of zero power factor all the way to 180 degrees of separation, then we will have succeeded in dilating time in a manner that does not decompose electricity into its constituent ingredients. Instead, we will have synthesized it.
For example…
Decomposition of electricity occurred with the Trans-Atlantic Telegraph Cable laid down during the latter part of the 1800s. It was solved by Oliver Heaviside by wrapping the copper core of the oceanic cable with iron ribbon or iron wire to boost the magnetic portion of the signal which had been decaying. The electrostatic portion had been doing just fine. But it takes both halves to make a whole of electricity without which no coherent electrical signal was able to make it out the other end of the cable to the telegraph receiving station.
Electrical engineers have been performing all along the decomposition half of Eric’s electrical theory (whenever a transmission line’s power factor shifts to zero). By comparison, Eric keeps telling us he has done BOTH TYPES OF MANIPULATION OF ELECTRICITY, ie. BOTH ITS SYNTHESIS AND ITS DECOMPOSITION IN VIOLATION OF OUR CHERISHED SO-CALLED LAW OF PHYSICS.
See what a trick it has been for the attorneys, turned physicists, have misguided us yet again by translating Eric’s more accurate phrase of the “decomposition of electricity into its constituent ingredients” into the electrical engineer’s phrase of: “zero power factor”!!!
Free energy is that simple provided that it doesn’t cost us more than the outcome to accomplish this. Op-amps are always given to us as an example of how to shift voltage relative to current by 180 degrees.
Magicians love to misguide our attention away from what’s really good to know by not telling us what we could, or should, know! In other words, what we’re not told is that op-amps will cost us too much to accomplish what I can do using mere micro volts and nano amps undergoing simulation in my circuit.
My non-theory English and Spanish “Extending the Range of an EV…etc” eBooks manages to fulfill the requirement of cost-efficiency: more power out than power in. And all due to my allowing a transient to perform the amplification for me without smothering it with voltage regulation, ie. I give it mere micro volts of input.
The reason why I don’t build anything to prove how well my concept circuit will work is due to how easy it is to find major flaws in our logic, alone. How silly it is to say, “Build it and we will believe in you (he, he, he, maybe, maybe not)” when we can’t even avoid defying ourselves through the artistry of self-contradiction.
Once our conventional wisdom ceases to lie to ourselves, then I will believe in you! Right now, I don’t trust you. Not to imply that you’re evil or scoundrels; nor are physicists. Just that we’re acting silly, but with non-silly consequences.
And for anyone to persecute someone else by automatically assuming it’s a scam or they’re deluded is to misguide attention (yet again) away from the one who is pointing their finger at someone else.
Let’s face it. We’ve been destroying energy all along whenever the power factor of a transmission line reaches zero. How can the Law of the Conservation of Energy account for that? Well… It does. Doesn’t it?
So, where’s the problem? If we’ve been accounting for the decomposition of electrical energy all along, then why have we ignored its opposite condition? The reformation of electrical energy from its constituent ingredients to reverse a zero power factor.
Free energy is the reformation of electrical energy in an unconventional way.
A non-op-amp process (such as the circuit concept which I am proposing) sees a throughput as being that of a zero power factor, and then performs the shift of phase relation (between the voltage and the current of this A/C electrical system) in a direction contrary to convention thus bringing the power factor to negative zero degrees in the cycle of an A/C rotation (equivalent to 180 degrees).
This negative impedance conversion is the alternative approach to correcting a delinquent power factor of zero.
Capacitors and inductors normally skew the phase relation between voltage and current by either a positive or negative direction of a 90 degree shift among themselves. And Eric Dollard has claimed that the mere use of caps and coils, alone, could synthesize electricity or decompose it without recourse to the more standard approach by the utility companies by the use of a synchronous condenser.
So, to correct a delinquent power factor of zero by performing a corrective shift in a direction which is opposite of normal results in a centripetal condition in which energy stays within the electrical system due to its accumulative character, aka negentropy.
But the entire circuit need not be negentropic for some or another portion of a circuit to be entropic.
One portion may accumulate the synthesis of electrical energy while another section dissipates it in the normal, thermodynamic fashion.
Still, this is not a perpetual motion machine since it still requires the input of some energy - no matter how slight - to run it.
So, Vinyasi, where can we see your working model in operation?
If perpetual motion is outlawed, only outlaws will have perpetual motion.
That’s why you don’t build one to prove it will work? You think you could thereby show people that they’re wrong, but instead you simply — tell them that they’re wrong? And, when Telling Them keeps failing to win them over, you just — keep on refusing to show them, since you’d rather keep telling them about it?
In that ‘he, he’ parenthetical, you say they maybe won’t believe even upon seeing one. But they flatly don’t believe you now! If you’re right, then why perpetually settle for a “don’t” if you can roll the dice on a “maybe”?
Vinyasi,
I repeat my comments below from post 152 (a successful prediction, clearly.)
Would you like to explain why you won’t simply build a working model?
Previously posted by glee
I’ve seen quite a few threads here in which posters state that they have discovered the way to create ‘free’ energy.
Of course it would be interesting to discuss their theories, but sadly the same pattern emerges every time:
- the poster ignores scientific discussion of their idea
- the poster keeps giving Internet links as if they were evidence
- the poster declines to actually build a working machine, since they don’t like publicity, fame or a billion dollars