Free energy for BM 2006

[can't sit still]

Free energy is ,of course a misnomer. Like many things, it all gets down to semantics. Science is advancing blindingly fast but the language [in general use] is only modified slowly.
Generally, if you produced energy without expending force or fuel,,,,it was called "free energy" I guess because it was free of fuel or human made force imput. If you could just collect it, it was free. Loose semantics of course.

The current research is to collect energy that's not presently being collected. Kinda like new taxes.
If you claim that they aren't going to figure new ways to collect ambient energy, you're pretty short-sighted.
Heat pumps are getting more and more efficient at working small temp differentials. They use ambient energy. Solar uses ambient and they are getting more efficient. The same for wind and tidal. We're advancing in the field of geothermal.
If you research "Blacklight Power", they're producing energy just from lowering the energy level of the hydrogen atom.

Many areas of investigation are yielding results at more efficiently collecting ambient energy.
The earth has an enormous magnetic field. The earth to ionosphere has an enormous electrical potential[lightning, aurora borealis/australis]

If you want to claim that we'll never tap this potential, you'll be adding your name to a very long list of people who claimed "it could never be done" Go to the moon, etc.

It might interest you to know that the Air force is coming along quite nicely on a FTL drive. Now THAT is a hard one to understand.
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
My sister is a retired Bird Colonel. I can tell you that the AF didn't go public until they had most of the bugs already worked out. Then they pretend that it's something out of left field.

It's probably along the lines of this. I don't know yet. http://www.stardrivedevice.com/summary.html

I make it a point of not listening to physics teachers. They know only what they have been told. ALL new knowledge is NEW to teachers.
Everybody knew that the world was flat,,,,ask any teacher.
Everybody knows that Einstein had the final word,,,just ask any teacher.

Many of the old laws and constants are falling by the wayside. This has ALWAYS happened. The teachers are the last ones to accept new stuff.

Go ahead, tell me that it can't be done,,,tell me to ask a teacher.
It's a waste of keystrokes. I follow no drummer. I do my own research.
I don't cling to anything. I embrace no limits. Mandkind has done very well at casting off limitations. I certainly don't march in the front row as far as intelligence or ability, but I'm right out front as far as understanding and acceptance.

We already tap the ambient heat fields. It won't be long before we tap the ambient electrical and magnetic fields.
The device that I'm building is listed at NuScam.org "Bedini"
This thread has a few links that explain the science very thoroughly. If you want to refute the work of a half dozen Nobel laureates,,,go ahead.

I won't be listening. I'll be out on the frontier listening to the really great minds who are creating our tomorrow.
Dan

[bringer]

Your argument is full of holes, but since you're not listening...

[DVD Burner]

Stay focused CSS.

Remember at one time on this planet, humans used to think the world was flat.

[lurker]

Go ahead, tell me that it can't be done,,,tell me to ask a teacher.
It's a waste of keystrokes. I follow no drummer. I do my own research

.

Screw the teacher, ask a theoretical physiicist.

Do research into why all these 'inventors' of these miraculous machines that give us cheap, clean, renewable energy aren't the richest men in the world--or why they're around to say anything about their ideas--surely the Government and Big Oil have killed or silenced them to keep from giving the world freedom from fossil fuels.

I don't believe the government--or ANYONE, including the oil companies, have anything to gain from keeping us beholden to an ever dwindling fuel source. And, before you say that they'd do it to avoid going out of business, consider that oil is used for a whole lot more than energy production. The plastics industry, for just one example.


And I do believe that there will be an energy breakthrough in the near future. But I don't think it'll come from quacks on the web.

Of course, you could show us all up. You could build a perpetual motion machine to power your camp at BM06. But I think, if you do, you should pay for everybody to get in.

Why? Well, first, you're going to be the richest person on the planet, and second, yuou're gonna want a lot of decoys around, if you catch my drift.

[DVD Burner]

CSS


Is there a progress report?

Does'nt make a diffrence weather it's good or bad news.


I'm still rootin for ya.

Let us know what be up.

[can't sit still]

[quote="DVD Burner"][size=18]CSS[/size]


Is there a progress report?

Does'nt make a diffrence weather it's good or bad news.


I'm still rootin for ya.

Let us know what be up. :)[/quote]
DVD, I appreciate the confidence. I looked at most everything and decided on the Bedini motor. I joined a few yahoo groups that were building them. Some people had been at it for years. I read 5,000 messages to get basic info. I also read a couple thousand more pages of patents and other related stuff.
This site has an overview http://www.geocities.com/captpjk/

There are sites that seem to be an obvious rip-off http://www.altenergy-pro.com/index.htm

There are a couple of devices in production. They're pretty hedgy about their claims. http://www.polar.bc.ca/magnet/motorgen.htm
http://www.flynnresearch.net/magnetics.htm
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cycclone

We all know that matter can be converted to energy and vise-versa. The latest science seems to prove that electricity can be converted to gravity and vise-versa. A gram of matter contains an enormous amount of energy. Nuclear fission only releases a small fraction of the total energy.
It seems that all matter has an energy "flux" that is only loosly captive.

Everyone seems to be trying to "comb off" some of this energy with various devices. The key seems to be in controlling oscilations.
They claim that this motor uses less amperage the faster it goes. If nothing else, it's really cute. http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet ... Steve1.htm

The source of the energy is hard to describe. There is some info here. http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/transverse-waves.htm
There have been a few Nobel prizes awarded for proving that this energy exists. It's presently difficult for the backyard experimenter[me] to tap into it. It hasn't helped that I've read a lot of conflicting info. It is also more difficult because I don't have any intuition for circuits. All the people who report good results in the Yahoo groups suddenly seem to lose interest in the group. I won't make it to BM 2006 with my self-charging car if I have to do 3 years of experimentation.

I've built the magnet wheel. I designed an[almost] no-drag bearing system. I've built the coil form and mount. I'm almost done modifying my lathe to twist the wire[for better coupling]
I bought a $500 battery analyser. I bought several meters. I have to go buy 10 golf-cart batteries. I should buy an ocillascope, but I don't know squat about them so you're talking about another learning curve[time] I'm getting the wire from e-bay in a couple of days. I bought a handful of semi-conductors[conflicting opinions]

I have to decide what kind of switching I'm going to do. The options are ;
Reed, Hall effect, opto, transistor, silver contacts, brushes, 555 switcher, and PWM. If I charge capacitors and then dump into batteries, there are a hundred recommendations for caps.

The science to do this is there. It just takes practical application. Just remember,,,an AC electric motor was thought a complete impossibility until Tesla came along.
I'm wrestling with 20 variables and I can't sit still.
It's kindof a long progress report, but I wouldn't want to be accused of no-content posts.
Dan

[bringer]

CSS,
You said "...The latest science seems to prove that electricity can be converted to gravity and vise-versa..."

Can you point me to this latest science?
Can you also direct me to the empirical evidence that this is the case? (science must be disprovable)

Just trying to understand.

[can't sit still]

It takes a lot of reading. Most of the research concerns the Biefeld-Brown effect. Various companies sell kits. http://www.americanantigravity.com/hvolt50kit.shtml
I guess that I shouldn't have thrown that statement out if I hadn't done extensive reading.
It APPEARS that gravity is only a secondary effect. It isn't clear if it's an effect of electricity or inertia. A great deal of research seems to point to it being an effect of inertia.

The net is a wonderful thing. It lets you educate yourself about a million things in a thousand disciplines. In the last 7 months, I've read about 50,000 pages. There are many pages that I've translated to general ideas. I can't pin it down to one single reference.

If you do a search on the "Biefeld-brown effect", "anti-gravity" and "lifters", you'll get many thousands of pages to read. After you read them, you'll know more about it than I do. I'm concentrating on the area of energy extraction from natural sources such as ion energy, internal atomic energy and other loosly defined "laminar flow energies".

You should also do searches on "gravity + inertia" to get an overview of that field. It's also helpful to read up on quantum mechanics for a more complete understanding. Unfortunately the search for understanding is a full time job.
I can't point you to a 3 paragraph proof.
Dan

[capjbadger]

Sadly I have been doing my research. Been reading up on those for years now. Lifters are simply ion drive engines and have been proven so in multiple tests. I'm dissapointed too.

A Z drive? Oh please. old news... If all it took was a large magnetic field, wouldn't the whole Earth fallen through into "hypersapce" by now? What? Earth's magntic field not big enough? How about the sun then? Somehow I highly doubt we're going to create a field larger than that anytime soon...

Keep at it.

Badger

[can't sit still]

Hey Badger,,,good to see you. You're one of the people that keep me honest.
If I knew that you were reading this I would have been a LOT more careful.
Have you done any follow up on some of the magnetic experiments that seem to be affected by human interaction? http://www.athenapolis.com/NN_FindingtheMotor.htm

Leedskalnin also shows an experiment that requires a human.
http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/ ... gcurnt.txt

Bearden claims that the brain is a scalar receiver. That might explain some of the eratic results of experiments. Josephson got a Nobel for proving quantum tunneling in the brain. So scalar reception doesn't seem out of the question. Have you read the writeup about hydrancephalics by Bearden?

Regarding gravity, it really seems to be related to inertia. There is a simple experiment where you drop a spinning sphere. It falls slower than a non-rotating one. If you throw it up, it goes higher. I haven't done these experiments but they seem to be pretty well accepted.
I get distracted easily by interesting stuff.
Dan

[capjbadger]

Hmmm... I don't think I've heard about the first couple bits you mention. I'll have to check out those links and get back to you.

Yeah, I've heard of the spinnig ball experiment, but your read on it is slightly off. It's not about inertia, but mass and energy. As the theory goes, since mass and energy are really the same thing, adding energy to the ball (the spin) causes the ball to interact with spacetime more than a non spinning ball, thus more gravity, thus it falls faster.

As far as using this effect to tap power, its a no win sadly. The extra energy you'd might be able to get from the falling object is equal to the energy you had to put in to spin the ball. No such thing as a free lunch strikes again.

[can't sit still]

Oh, I wasn't thinking of tapping power. But, your analysis begs the question; do hot balls drop faster than cold balls? Does a vibrating ball drop faster than a non-vibrating ball. Also, if you throw a rotating ball up,,,it goes higher. That would seem to contradict your analysis.

Speaking of hot vibrating balls,,,,i'm off on a new quest. I'm going to build the ultimate magnet motor.
I need to wind some big coils and make an aluminum merry-go-round.
I'll place the coils around the merry-go-round and power them as a monopole. The merry-go-round will have seats for topless girls.
There is NOTHING more attractive or magnetic than TITS.
Let's see; coils on the outside to attract the magnets/tits,,,that means diamonds at the center to attract the magnet holders.

Sancho,,,my lance...we're off on an adverture To dream the impossible dream,, dum de dum

Badger, I just reread your post. The spinning ball fall slower not faster.
There is also interesting info on gravity shadows.

[capjbadger]

Oh, I wasn't thinking of tapping power. But, your analysis begs the question; do hot balls drop faster than cold balls? Does a vibrating ball drop faster than a non-vibrating ball. Also, if you throw a rotating ball up,,,it goes higher. That would seem to contradict your analysis.

Yes, Yes, No... Where is it said that a rotating ball goes higher? I've only seen where a ball dropped falls faster...

[can't sit still]

Badger, rather than post the rotating ball experiments, I'll post a couple of ideas that other people have come up with.
http://www.grandunification.com/hypertext/Gravity.html

http://www.esotericscience.com/Gravity.aspx

speculation
If bodies in free-fall in gravitational field are in a state of inertial rest, then gravity is not an applied external force. And, if gravity is not an external force then what the heck is it?
http://blatherreview.mu.nu/archives/cat_gravity.html

A couple of links that might have some value,,,half-way down
http://www.keelynet.com/interact/archive/00001073.htm

The truth is,,,nobody's really pinned it down.

[capjbadger]

Go ahead and post the link for the ball experiment. I really want to see where someone got a difference with a ball going up.

[bringer]

[quote]"...There is a simple experiment where you drop a spinning sphere. It falls slower than a non-rotating one. If you throw it up, it goes higher. I haven't done these experiments but they seem to be pretty well accepted..."[/quote]


This is untrue.
I performed this experiment in physics class.

We dropped all kinds of things in a vacuum.
Guess what happened:
They all fell at the at the same predictable rate.

[capjbadger]

Oh crap... hahaha Totaly discard what I said earlier. I misread that whole ball dropping thing. For some reason I read it as the ball dropping faster not slower. Opps...

"Sorry, we forgot to convert the meters to feet." -NASA ;D

[Gravity Mike]

Sorry CSS, although I don't have time to individually 'debunk' all of these ideas, as a physicist who works at a lab employing 3 physics nobel prize winners, you sound like a 'perpetual motion machine quack' and a 'cold fussion quack' rolled into one.

I'll be the first to admit that science hasn't, and never will, answer all questions; and keep in mind that as 'old' science is debunked, it never really is fully debunked, just not seen as the ultimate truth anymore. Einstein 'debunked' Newton, but consider that every building make since Newton takes only Newton's WRONG theories into account - because the Einstein modifications to the theory just don't apply for that application.

Now going back to my first comments - unlike the old stogey's I work with, I am receptive to new ideas that most of them wouldn't even consider. However, based on the second comments, the 'new science' has to become the old science for our familiar observations (like, we dont' experience time dilation while driving to LA - but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

I recommend learning more physics if you're interested in this stuff. Example: free energy from a falling mass - you can never get more energy out than the energy required to raise the mass in the first place. As a matter of fact, many off-grid folks pump water at elevation to to later generate power by running it through a turbine. It's 'free' when nature drops it at elevation and we hold it up there - it's called hydro-eletric power and it's not a new idea. Matter is 100% converted to energy in a nuclear bomb - controlling the release is the problem - which is nuclear power and hot fussion research. Cold fussion is more complex, possible I suppose (but not according to my co-workers), but nevertheless not yet demonstrated more convincingly than bigfoot has been proven to exist.

I guess I'm a non-believer - but keep on looking. The trick is to ferret out the quackery of those who do not understand what they are trying to explain - they are hiding their errors, so you can focus your energy on those with some promise. Always try to debunk, it's called scientific scrutiny, and if it survives it, you're onto something.

Gravity.

[capjbadger]

Hmmm.. Does "Sonofusion" (I think thats how its spelled) count as "Cold fusion"?

[regionalchaos]

It's 'free' when nature drops it at elevation and we hold it up there - it's called hydro-eletric power and it's not a new idea.

Having skimmed some of the sites that have been posted, I think that what CSS and others are working towards, is a way "catch lightning in a bottle". Similar in concept to gathering hydro electrical poser, just that we (as a society) haven't figured out how to do it yet. It is a newer concept.

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

This set-up is about as close to "Free" as your gonna get....




A few of these


Hooked up to one of these


the rebbi

[capjbadger]

Having skimmed some of the sites that have been posted, I think that what CSS and others are working towards, is a way "catch lightning in a bottle". Similar in concept to gathering hydro electrical poser, just that we (as a society) haven't figured out how to do it yet. It is a newer concept.

Catch lighting in a bottle" eh?

Its call a Lyden Jar...

Hydro elecrtic poser? I can't tell if that was suppose to be a joke, or the funniest typo I've seen in some time.

[can't sit still]

[quote="Gravity Mike"]Sorry CSS, although I don't have time to individually 'debunk' all of these ideas

You're going to have a hard time debunking cold fusion. Pons ,Fleishman and 500 others.

Matter is 100% converted to energy in a nuclear bomb -

If I remember correctly,,only the binding energy is released. The particles themselves are not converted,,,hence the radiation.
100% conversion would be FAR more energetic.

I guess I'm a non-believer - but keep on looking.
I stated that I was trying to collect some of the energy from the earth's magnetic field and the earth to ionosphere potential. Are you saying that these potentials aren't there or are you saying that no one can ever learn to tap them?
If you read my post where I started out about semantics,,,, there's all kinds of free energy. I put up a pole with a huge spiral antenna made out of the condenser coil from an AC. It's got all those thousands of little tangs. I pick up tons of RF and convert it with something like this
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet ... mbient.htm
Technicly it's free because I didn't pay for it. I put it up at a friends place. He's got 3000lbs of batts. The RF augments his solar.

It's nothing to squabble over, but there are reportedly 200 patent applications for overunity devices from just the Bay area.
I'm still working on building my self-charging electric buggy to bring to BM 2006.

I see no one has the guts to debunk my perpetual motion merry-go-round. Now THAT'S solid good science.

Badger, I haven't quite found the ball experiment. I'm heavy into building. I haven't yet seen your analysis on the gravity pages that I posted
Dan






























Gravity.[/quote]

[capjbadger]

You're going to have a hard time debunking cold fusion. Pons ,Fleishman and 500 others.

Sadly they debunked themselves by not being able to reproduce their experiment for peer review. And if you can't make it happen at will, well that one pretty useless machine.

If I remember correctly,,only the binding energy is released. The particles themselves are not converted,,,hence the radiation.
100% conversion would be FAR more energetic.

You're memory is faulty I'm afraid. Breaking molecular bonds it a Chemical reaction. In a nuclear reaction, there is less mass afterwards. if you run the numbers, the missing mass is equal to the energy gained. E=mC2

Yes, converting all that mass to energy.. well "energetic" is a mild way of saying what would happen.

I stated that I was trying to collect some of the energy from the earth's magnetic field and the earth to ionosphere potential. Are you saying that these potentials aren't there or are you saying that no one can ever learn to tap them?
If you read my post where I started out about semantics,,,, there's all kinds of free energy. I put up a pole with a huge spiral antenna made out of the condenser coil from an AC. It's got all those thousands of little tangs. I pick up tons of RF and convert it with something like this
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet ... mbient.htm
Technicly it's free because I didn't pay for it. I put it up at a friends place. He's got 3000lbs of batts. The RF augments his solar.

"Free to me" energy is not "Free energy" in my book. By your logic, me running an extention cord to next door's outside outlet is "Free Energy". You taping off of RF in the air is not free. You pay in taxes for the power lines that supply the radio stations. You pay in loss of life span from the polution in the air from the coal fired power plants that produce the power for those radio stations.

It's nothing to squabble over, but there are reportedly 200 patent applications for overunity devices from just the Bay area.

The key word here is applications...
Not a single one will be approved. Why? The US patent office has a policy of auto-denying any app that is for a "over-unity" device or the like. If some guy trys to sell you a device or plans for one and claims that he has a US patent for it, he is LYING.

I'm still working on building my self-charging electric buggy to bring to BM 2006.

That'd be cool. Solar? There was something like that running aroundlast year. A huge carriage thing that came through Kidsville alot. It had a sizeable array of solar panels on the back of it to recharge the battery bank, but even that wasn't quite enough when he was giving rides all day along to the kids. They'd have to kick on the on-board gas generator from time to time.

Badger, I haven't quite found the ball experiment. I'm heavy into building. I haven't yet seen your analysis on the gravity pages that I posted
Dan

Which links again? There have been so many I'm not sure which ones you are talking about.

[can't sit still]

My faulty memory still thinks that plutonium and U-238 are elements and not molecules. The binding energy that I'm speaking of is not molecular bonds. The binding energy of the nucleus is what is released when the nucleus is split[fissioned]. My faulty memory thinks that the nucleus is split,,,the resulting particles split other nucleii,,,in a chain reaction. The released binding energy of the nucleus is released as heat. The particles are released as radiation.
If I wasn't so busy/lazy I'd search atomic disintigration. I'm going to have to disengage myself from the board to keep up with my project.

I saw that enormous electric trycicle. It was pretty cool but I didn't see a very big panel area.

As far as the patent office. I had heard that they won't approve any patents for OU devices by claiming that they aren't qualified to asess them. Who knows? Bedini got his patent approved by claiming that he was recovering back "emf" not by claiming overunity. He admits that he was lying but that that was the only wasy to get it through.

I found something even more controversial than Rupert Sheldrake. When I have a LOT of time, I'll do some investigation and post it. Right now I'm building my self-regauging battery car.
Dan

[capjbadger]

My faulty memory still thinks that plutonium and U-238 are elements and not molecules. The binding energy that I'm speaking of is not molecular bonds. The binding energy of the nucleus is what is released when the nucleus is split[fissioned]. My faulty memory thinks that the nucleus is split,,,the resulting particles split other nucleii,,,in a chain reaction. The released binding energy of the nucleus is released as heat. The particles are released as radiation.
If I wasn't so busy/lazy I'd search atomic disintigration. I'm going to have to disengage myself from the board to keep up with my project.

Forgive me. Not your faulty memory. You faulty grasp of physics...
It takes energy to break the "Strong Force" nuclear bonds. The alpha and beta particles are Heliuim-4 nuclei (2 neutrons and 2 protons) and free flying Electrons respectively. The free flying neutrons are what split the other fissionable material for the chain reaction.
Here's the breakdown...

Energy Released From Each Fission
165 MeV ~ kinetic energy of fission products
7 MeV ~ gamma rays
6 MeV ~ kinetic energy of the neutrons
7 MeV ~ energy from fission products
6 MeV ~ gamma rays from fission products
9 MeV ~ anti-neutrinos from fission products

Total = 200 MeV

The sum of the masses of these fragments is less than the original mass. This 'missing' mass (about 0.1 percent of the original mass) has been converted into energy according to Einstein's equation.

The only time you're going to get energy directly from a broken bond is in chemical reactions, not nuclear.

Get your facts straight.

I saw that enormous electric trycicle. It was pretty cool but I didn't see a very big panel area.

Nah, this was a big 4 wheeled thing. I'll see if I can find a pic of it again.

[gyre]

Hot water freezes faster than cold.
Flying is safer than driving.
Wrong is right.

[capjbadger]

Hot water freezes faster than cold.
Flying is safer than driving.
Wrong is right.

Ok.... And you point was...?

[DVD Burner]

Hot water freezes faster than cold.
Flying is safer than driving.
Wrong is right.

Ok.... And you point was...?

Humorous.

How could you not get that?

[capjbadger]

I got the joke part. I was seeing if there was anything more to the post than that.