Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 523235
• Total Topics: 15575
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 4
• Guests: 8
• Total: 12

### Author Topic: re: energy producing experiments  (Read 54337 times)

#### magneat

• Newbie
• Posts: 21
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #135 on: January 02, 2020, 11:08:25 AM »

we calculate the balance of speeds and kinetic energies in Beletsky's experiment:

Mm is the mass of the missile assembly;

Mr is the mass of the rocket body;

Mb is the mass of the ball;

Mm = Mr + Mb = M;

n <1;

Mb = n * M;

Mr = (1 - n) * M;

Vm - the speed of the missile assembly;

Vr - rocket hull speed;

Vb - ball speed;

Mm * Vm = M *Vm = Mr * Vr  + (- Mb * Vb ) =

= ((1 - n) * M) * Vr  - n * M * Vb;

((1 - n) * M) * Vr = M * Vm + n * M * Vb = M * (Vm + n *Vb);

Vr = (M * (Vm + n *Vb)) / (M * (1 - n)) = (Vm + n *Vb) / (1 - n);

Ekr - kinetic energy of the rocket body;

Ekb - kinetic energy of the ball;

Ekm - kinetic energy of the rocket assembly;

Ekoe - the addition of kinetic energy from the Obert effect;

Ekr = (0.5 * M * (1 - n)) * (((Vm + n *Vb) / (1 - n)) ^ 2) =

= (0.5 * M * (Vm + n *Vb)^ 2) / (1 - n) =

= (0.5 * M / (1 - n)) * (Vm ^ 2 + 2 * n * Vm * Vb + n ^ 2 * Vb ^ 2) =

= (1 / (1 - n)) * 0.5 * М * Vm ^ 2 + (n / (1 - n)) * 0.5 * (n * М) * Vb ^ 2 + ((2 * n) / (1 - n)) * 0.5 * M * Vm * Vb;

Kkm = 1 / (1 - n); (fraction of kinetic energy Ekm in Ekr )

Kkb = n / (1 - n); (fraction of kinetic energy Ekb in Ekr )

Kkoe = (2 * n) / (1 - n); (fraction of the kinetic energy of Ekoe in Ekr )

Ekr = Kkm * 0.5 * M *  Vm ^ 2 + Kkb * 0.5 * (n * M) * Vb ^ 2 + Kkoe * 0.5 * M * Vm * Vb;

Ekr = Kkm * Ekm + Kkb * Ekb + Kkoe * Ekoe;
_____________________________________________________________________________

as can be seen from these elementary calculations, the theory is consistent with experience

the speed (Vk) and energy (Ekk) of the body (the body of the "rocket") depends on the speed of the body before the impact of a force pulse ...

just in case, I’ll attach once again a picture where everything is painted for kindergarten

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #135 on: January 02, 2020, 11:08:25 AM »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3339
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #136 on: January 02, 2020, 04:41:20 PM »
You are forgetting the source of the acceleration.
Which explicitly comes from the gravitational potential well.

Newton already told us it is easier to accelerate a moving object

We have since then learned how to derive the moment of inertia
of the moving mass relative to the applied force.

You consume less fuel accelerating while your car is moving
than you do from a dead stop.

The benefit of that rocket launching method is simply an improvement
upon our current method.
Again, not a “gain” in energy. Just less waste.

Further, if you had to raise the rocket to the elevated starting point
you’re wasting more than you save by using the method.

#### magneat

• Newbie
• Posts: 21
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #137 on: January 02, 2020, 05:28:30 PM »

about the "gravitational-potential hole" did not understand?

this simple experience shows very definitely - the greater the speed of the "body", the greater the increase in the kinetic energy of the "body" from the same impulse of force to this "body".
it’s not clear why to drag here a “gravitational-potential hole” and other “difficulties”?
the experience is "simple" and "transparent", where can there be a hoax? everyone can repeat.

p.s. imho, all OU machines where something rotates take OU from mechanics ...

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #137 on: January 02, 2020, 05:28:30 PM »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3339
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #138 on: January 02, 2020, 05:59:00 PM »
How?/why? Is the rocket moving?
Before the engines fire?

Because it drops from a height
Gravity accelerates the rocket initially
Then the rockets fire and speed it up more.

You have to get the rocket up there to drop it
Or I have a genius idea.... use a 2-stage booster
The first stage can get the rocket moving
just like dropping it does in the video
The second stage can boost the already moving rocket
like when the ball fires on the video!!
Wow I should call nasa and let them know

#### magneat

• Newbie
• Posts: 21
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #139 on: January 02, 2020, 06:30:42 PM »

you don’t need to call nasa, they know about the Obert effect.
back to this experience, forget about real rockets.
the person in this video makes a “rocket start” at different points on the trajectory.
in terms of energy conservation, it does not matter at which point on the trajectory the "rocket launch" was.
energy from the gravitational field (potential + kinetic) and energy from the ball should be added up.
but for some reason, the kinetic energy of the rocket hull turns out to be maximum when the "launch of the rocket" occurs at the bottom of the trajectory, when the speed of the entire "system" is maximum. violation of the laws of physics is not here, Obert brought his effect purely theoretically, "at the tip of the pen." this is because the kinetic energy of the body is the square of the speed of the body. no mysteries, no mysticism in this.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #139 on: January 02, 2020, 06:30:42 PM »

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 123
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #140 on: January 02, 2020, 11:25:20 PM »
I did this experiment quite a while ago; but it is easy enough to remember so I will just present it from memory.

I took a board about ½ inch thick by 2 inches wide and 1.1 meters long. I drilled a hole in the center of the board at 55 cm. I cut the hex head off of a ¼ inch bolt and fastened the bolt to the board through the hole. I placed the smooth end of the bolt in a hand held, variable speed, drill.

I slowly began to rotate the board with the drill: it rotated uniformly and smoothly with no wobble. Now lets make some observations.

One: the mass on both sides of the board are equal.

The torque on both sides of the board are equal.

Third: the energy used to rotate the left side and the energy used to rotate the right side are equal.

Now lets continue the experiment by drilling a hole at 10 cm from the point of rotation on the right side of the board. And then place a  half inch bolt, 4 inches long, through the hole fixing the bolt at the center of its mass.

Now slowly begin to rotate the board and bolt; you will quickly notice a distinct wobble.

The mass on both sides of the board are no longer equal.

The torque on both sides of the board are not equal.

The energy used to rotate the left side and the energy used to rotate the right side are (*probably) not equal.  *The drill is flying around so who know where the energy goes.

Now lets continue the experiment by drilling a hole at 50 cm from the point of rotation on the left side. And then place a quarter inch bolt through the hole and fasten it at the center of mass. This quarter inch bolt should have one fifth the mass of the ½ inch bolt.

I slowly began to rotate the board with the drill: it rotated uniformly and smoothly with no wobble. Now lets make some observations.

One: the mass on both sides of the board are not equal.

The torque on both sides of the board are equal.

Third: the energy used to rotate the left side and the energy used to rotate the right side are equal. The energy on both sides was equal when we just had the board and we had no wobble; and now we are back again to no wobble so surly the energies are equal again.

The small bolt is moving 5 times as fast as the large bolt and it has five time as much energy; but the drill treats the two sides as if they were identical. The board with no weight has no wobble; and the board with these two weights has no wobble. The same amount of energy is used to accelerate the large and small bolt and the small bolt has 5 times as much energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy is violated by this experiment.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 123
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #141 on: January 03, 2020, 12:50:16 PM »
A 10 kilogram mass moving 2 m/sec can give half of its Newtonian momentum to a 1 kilogram mass moving 10 m/sec. The energy loss for the 10 kg is 15 J and the energy gain for the 1 kilogram is 150 J.

A 10 kilogram mass moving 1 m/sec can give all of its Newtonian momentum to a 1 kilogram mass moving 20 m/sec. The energy loss for the 10 kg is 5 J and the energy gain for the 1 kilogram is 250 J.

Math: ½ mv²:  ½ * 10 kg * 2 m/sec * 2m/sec = 20 joules:    ½ * 10 kg * 1 m/sec * 1m/sec = 5 joules:    ½ * 1 kg * 10 m/sec * 10 m/sec = 50 joules:       ½ * 1 kg * 20 m/sec * 20 m/sec = 200 J          ½ * 1 kg * 30 m/sec * 30 m/sec = 450 joules:

Math: mv:   10 kg * 2 m/sec = 20;   10 kg * 1 m/sec = 10;  1 kg * 10 m/sec = 10;  1 kg * 20 m/sec = 20 ;  1 kg * 30 m/sec = 30;

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #141 on: January 03, 2020, 12:50:16 PM »

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 123
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #142 on: January 03, 2020, 11:00:55 PM »
I was in my lab and I saw a piece of extruded aluminum 362 mm long with 29 holes evenly spaced along its length. The holes were slightly elongated down the center line of this bar shaped aluminum. So I thought I would put some numbers to the above experiment.

I fixed a 1/4 bolt in the center hole: and then put this bolt in a hand held variable speed drill.

The bar accelerated smoothly and uniformly as I slowly turned the drill on.

Then at two holes out (25mm) from the center; I placed a ¼ bolt nut and washers with a mass of about 115 grams.

The drill wobbled distinctly as I turned the drill on.

Then I balance the bar with the two attached bolts; with a third bolt at 14 holes out (175mm) on the other side. This was to the nearest washer (one nut; two washers and one bolt). This came to about 17 grams. And then I placed this back onto the drill.

The bar accelerated smoothly and uniformly as I slowly turned the drill on.

The drill accelerated 17 grams at 175 mm just as easily as it accelerated 115 grams at 25 mm. The drill did not balk at producing more energy on one side than the other side. And all other parts of the bar being equal: If I had ramped up the drill to 380 rpm you would have had .0575 joules on one side and .4165 joules on the other side.

The point is that real world experiments do not show any trend toward conservation of energy.

And it is important to note that the Newtonian momentum on both sides is equal.

Experiments conserve momentum not energy.

Now it is true that this is not a closed system; but double radius Atwood's experiments perform exactly the same way. They will accelerate smaller objects to higher speeds while conforming to  F = ma.  Not ½ mv²

#### Toolofcortex

• Hero Member
• Posts: 607
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #143 on: January 10, 2020, 05:18:32 AM »
Good stuff magneat. So you think Chas figured a way to use this for overunity benefit?

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #143 on: January 10, 2020, 05:18:32 AM »

#### magneat

• Newbie
• Posts: 21
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #144 on: January 10, 2020, 12:54:00 PM »
Good stuff magneat. So you think Chas figured a way to use this for overunity benefit?

I am sure that it is.
Did you notice that YouTube is filled with mechanical OU generators made in Asia, Africa, Latin America and other "non-European" countries? there are already tens, if not hundreds of them, on YouTube, despite the fact that they are periodically removed.

imho, this is because the authors either taught physics from other textbooks, or self-taught.

"European" physics textbooks hammered into the heads of people from the 1st grade that the "Law of conservation of energy" is a "sacred cow", no one dares to doubt it. but there are many situations where the "Law of conservation of energy" conflicts with the "Law of conservation of momentum."

_____________________________________________________________________________
we write down the boundary conditions for the task:

we will consider only uniform, steady movements. transient processes, and hence accelerations at the moments of action of force pulses will not be considered. we are not at all interested in the magnitude of the force F and the duration of the force Δt. we are only interested in the result of the action (F * Δt) - a change in the velocity of the body ΔV.
those. the "installation" operation algorithm is as follows:
we have a “body” of mass M, which moves uniformly with speed V1.
the "mechanism" periodically acts on the "body" by a force impulse (F * Δt = const).
transients (moments of acceleration) skip.
after the action of the force impulse (F * Δt), the "body" again moves uniformly, but with a different speed V2 = V1 + ΔV
i.e., in accordance with Newton’s 1st law, at times when the body moves uniformly, we will have equal inertial reference systems (IRS).
__________________________________________________________________

for simplicity, consider linear motion.
the physics of the process will be the same as for the rotational motion.
there is a body of mass M, there is a certain "mechanism" ("mechanisms)" that is capable of
transmit to the body some impulse of an external force (F * Δt).
to simplify, let all momenta of force be the same (F * Δt = const)
using the “mechanism”, the body accelerates to a certain speed V1, while the body
acquires kinetic energy Ek1 = 0.5 * M * V1 ^ 2
if you paint all the formulas:
body weight - M
initial body speed - V1
final body speed - V2
body speed gain - ΔV = V2 - V1
the energy expended by an external force to increase the speed of the body - ΔEst = 0.5 * M * ΔV ^ 2
important point: body speed increased from V1 to V2 (changed by ΔV)
those. for an external force there is no difference with what speed the body moves before and after its impact.
there is such a theorem - Impulse Theorem:
______________________________________________________________________________
The change in the momentum of a mechanical system over a certain period of time is equal to the geometric sum of the elementary impulses of external forces applied to the system over the same period of time.
______________________________________________________________________________

initial kinetic energy of the body - Ek1 = 0.5 * M * V1 ^ 2
kinetic energy of the body after an impulse of an external force - Eк2 = 0.5 * M * V2 ^ 2
increase in kinetic energy of the body:
ΔEk = Ek2 - Ek1 = 0.5 * M * V2 ^ 2 - 0.5 * M * V1 ^ 2 = 0.5 * M * (V2 ^ 2 - V1 ^ 2) = 0.5 * M * ((V1 + ΔV) ^ 2 - V1 ^ 2)) = 0.5 * M * ((V1 ^ 2 + 2 * V1 * ΔV + ΔV ^ 2) - V1 ^ 2)) = 0.5 * M * (2 * V1 * ΔV + ΔV ^ 2) = 0.5 * M * ΔV ^ 2 + M * V1 * ΔV
write again:
ΔEst = 0.5 * M * ΔV ^ 2
ΔEk = 0.5 * M * ΔV ^ 2 + M * V1 * ΔV
ΔEc> ΔEst
_______________________________________________________________________________________
where is the mistake?
_______________________________
p.s. from the formulas it turns out that for any initial speed V1> 0, it should already be OU
in reality, friction losses should be taken into account, losses due to the fact that the impulse of an external force is transmitted with an efficiency of <100%.
but in practice must be V1min, after which OU > 0.
the formula shows OU = M * V1 * ΔV (ideal conditions), in reality minus losses.
Of course, this is all theory
need experimentation.
p.p.s. it seems that all the OU generators where something massive rotates get OU from MECHANICS
and all kinds of coils, spirals, nozzles, etc., are purely engineering solutions for implementation
conditions for obtaining OU...
____________________________________________________________________
Quote

“Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.”
/ Marshall McLuhan /
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 05:42:34 PM by magneat »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3339
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #145 on: January 10, 2020, 01:58:04 PM »
I have been at this for 36 years.
Ever since I was old enough to comprehend the
(which predate thermodynamics by centuries)

These theories seem illogical at their core.
And I have always known there was something wrong.
During my research I have seen many violations of
these theories. And from my observations, it is not
our physics that are violated, but our understanding of them.

Maxwell made allowance for these violations, we have simply
convinced ourselves that things outside our ‘box’ cannot be “real”.
The negative (non real) solutions are still perfectly valid.
We just have to utilize the system in a way to work with itself,
rather than against itself.

Gravity can be used in a system to do this.
But not gravity alone. There needs another force in opposition.
Then the system can intake synchronous energies from around itself.
Not strictly in terms of vibration, but synchronization, of changes in motion
or changes in force/pressure/etc.

Gravity/air
Gravity/magnet
Gravity/ impulse force
Gravity / gravity (from a second well - tidal, etc)

Do some quick math on the mass of the Earth’s oceans
and how long Tidal activity would take to slow down the moon.
You see the problem

The solution lies in how we define energy itself.
Einstein made a valiant attempt to define mass in terms of energy.
Because on the most basic level, mass itself is a system that works
exactly like we are trying to do.

Satellites orbit their star because the forces pulling outwards balance
the gravity pulling it towards the star.
Eventually it winds down and gravity wins because it is the sole force
acting on the system.

Let’s take a system like mars just a few million years ago.
A giant volcano caused the planet to move away from the sun
and take on a much larger orbit.

The timing of this event placed a force in opposition to the sun’s
gravity in just the right direction that it prolonged the orbit well
beyond the determinable wind down time of the system.

Let’s take a look at another example:
A gravity potential storage in the form of a raised water tank.
And a change in pressure by a constricted nozzle.
Mathematically there comes a solution where-in the pressure and
the height of the water jet violate our theories.
Therefore, the theory must be incorrect.

Or another: a pulsed potato cannon:
Where-in an extended tube is given a series of synchronous pulses
of air. Total volume of air released and total initial pressure of the
air tank are held constant. The pulse cannon violates our understanding
of the original device. (which lies at the heart of ballistics theory)

In about 5-6 months we will revisit Archer Quinn’s Magnetogravitic Generator.
This device uses a synchronous magnetic impulse to oppose gravity.

Chas Campbell created a device which uses the momentum of a rolling mass
to accelerate a wheel faster than gravity is pulling on it.
Under constant brute force, this would clearly waste energy.
However, with the proper timing and mass*velocity of impact vs wheel mass:
There are solutions which violate our theories.
(Note: i was not a proponent of the Chas Campbell device for many years)
(because I had overlooked it’s true operating principal)

Conclusion:
When we arrive at a more correct definition of Energy
“Overunity” will not be what we see it as today.
But will be accepted by consensus.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #145 on: January 10, 2020, 01:58:04 PM »

#### magneat

• Newbie
• Posts: 21
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #146 on: January 10, 2020, 05:02:59 PM »

everything has been invented before us, for example, John Bedini motor-generator, Robert Adams motor-generator, Richard Clem over-unity motor, VEGA  motor-generator, etc.

Bedini, for example, began his experiments with a generator Raymond Kromrey.

further excerpts from the book "Bedini SG - The Complete Advanced Handbook "

...The original design of this generator was developed by a Swiss engineer named Raymond Kromrey. Kromrey did extensive research and testing on this concept in the 1960s, and received US Patent #3,374,376 on the basic design in March of 1968...
...Being a firm believer in the "Law of Conservation of Energy", he postulated that the energy gain produced by the machine was coming from an interaction with the Gravitational Field, but he also believed that the specific mass of the rotor was involved in this gain. The US Patent is written in a relatively simple manner, and the patent is granted on a single claim based on the physical design alone. There is no attempt to officially "claim" that the generator does anything unusual...
...So here we see for the first time, in Kromrey's patent, the fundamental components of John's "Free Energy Device" consisting of an electric motor, a low drag generator and a flywheel...
...When John first discovered the Kromrey Patent, he knew it might hold the key to what he was looking for. He immediately attempted to contact the inventor in Switzerland. Unfortunately, by the time John did this, Raymond Kromrey had already died. He was able, however, to track down his surviving widow...
...She told John he could do anything he wanted with it and not to contact her again...
...Left completely on his own, John began to replicate the machine and see if he could duplicate the results Kromrey reported...

Jim Watson Generator (Big Bedini Generator Model)

...After John published his book, Jim Watson contacted him, and they had numerous discussions on the phone. Jim wasn't very familiar with electronics, and asked John to develop an even simpler control circuit. In response to this, John developed this 555 based timer/relay circuit. Using this simpler circuit controller, Jim Watson built his first machine...
...Jim Watson was sufficiently impressed with his first model that he decided to build a bigger one. In the run up to the Tesla Centennial Symposium in Colorado Springs that summer, Jim would only tell John that he was working on a "surprise" for the conference. Jim was an accomplished automobile mechanic, so working on big machines was well within his level of expertise. Here is a picture of what Jim Watson demonstrated for the attendees at the first Tesla Society Conference in the summer of 1984...
...Remarkably, Jim Watson did not let John inspect the machine at close range...
Jim Watson's large model of John's "Free Energy Generator" design was shown at the Tesla Centennial Symposium, held at Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, on August 9th through the 12th, 1984. The published Proceedings of the Tesla Centennial Symposium, in the Light of Modern Physics does not mention either Jim Watson's demonstration or John Bedini's presentation on his "Cigar Box Tesla Switch." Apparently, to be included in the published "Proceedings" document, the presentations had to be written up ahead of time, and Jim's and John's remarks were essentially spontaneous in nature.
While the MACHINE seems to have disappeared immediately after this demonstration, Jim Watson did not...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
It is noteworthy that in all these machines there is a FLYWHEEL, those  MASS OF rotating components is important.
without a FLYWHEEL, these machines will not work
imho, in all these machines works the "Overt effect", described as early as 90 years ago, works.

p.s. John Bedini removed from wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=JOHN+BEDINI&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

#### Toolofcortex

• Hero Member
• Posts: 607
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #147 on: January 10, 2020, 06:16:30 PM »
Some paid hoaxers people are scamming on top of working technology is what I think.

I say this because of the Earth Engine, I dont think anybody would be ballzy enough to make this without external guarantees.

Its all brown folk networks, not indian also. The other brown folks.

Good old youtube isolate and scam tactic.

Also, I am not sure that Clem got it working, there was an expensive attempt and it was not pursued.

#### magneat

• Newbie
• Posts: 21
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #148 on: January 10, 2020, 06:41:12 PM »
...Also, I am not sure that Clem got it working, there was an expensive attempt and it was not pursued.

It’s just that those who tried to copy Clem, imho, could not correctly calculate the parameters of the generator and insist on its operation.
it’s like, for example, giving the task to an “alien from another planet” by taking a photo of his appearance to make and start the internal combustion engine, without explaining all the “subtleties” of his work.

Continuing the topic:

article in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL about the american generator "Earth Engine" -
https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-mans-unlikely-quest-to-power-the-world-with-magnets-11558029179
full tex can be read there - https://revolution-green.com/one-mans-unlikely-quest-power-world-magnets/
company website - ie.energy/
one of these generators is installed in Las Vegas - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZkuteW_Q9k

and what we see - the device is more than 2 tons

I’ll express my opinion, quotes from the article from the link above:

Quote
"... IEC says its first commercial model, the R32 Earth Engine, hucks two 900-kilogram flywheels at speeds between 125 and 250 rpm, generating 240V or 480V at 100 amps...

will not work without flywheels

Quote
"...IEC has yet to file any patent paperwork for experts to examine, which Mr. Hinz said was due to fear the technology would be poached in a patent counterclaim..."

Mr. Hinz  and Mr. Danzik know that they use other people's ideas

Quote
"...IEC isn’t selling, or even leasing, the machines, to keep the secret guts secret. Instead, it will charge by the kilowatt-hour delivered in the field—and a pittance, too, 8 to 45 cents per kWh..."

They know that the technology is the simplest, and therefore they are afraid

Quote
"...The magnets IEC uses are also highly one-sided, or «anisotropic», which means their field is stronger on one face than the other—say, 85% North and 15% South..."

from the point of view of physics, nonsense...

#### Toolofcortex

• Hero Member
• Posts: 607
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #149 on: January 10, 2020, 06:44:57 PM »