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.

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?  (Read 72412 times)

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #90 on: May 08, 2021, 01:40:28 AM »
 I'm out of town  but I will provide answer to your  comment

Offline onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #91 on: May 08, 2021, 02:23:04 AM »
Ilya Tsimbaluk

I think your misrepresenting the intent of Einstein and most credible people in science and engineering.

First, we do it not because we want to be wealthy or famous which is misguided and fleeting at best but to acquire knowledge and understanding. So these scientists shared what they learned as there best guess at the time knowing full well it would be improved and refined in the future by others.

Did you know there is no such thing as a field or lines of force?. Faraday created the concept of the field to replace action at a distance which was ambiguous as well as lines of force so others could do math and equations and understand the concept better. Thus we can see a translation in time we call science whereby man has created an artificial reality to describe nature not as it exists but as they perceive it to exist. In the same way as Faraday, Einstein created space-time not because it described reality but because it was better conceptually than most other theories at the time. We could ask, Einstein's theories made you think didn't it?, thus he succeeded.

The most common problem relating to this misunderstanding relates to psychology. The majority of people tend to see a condition of something as being something in itself. For example many believe heat is a substance which miraculously flows through materials and space. However it is not something but a condition of something, a "measure" of the motion of the atoms in molecules or EM waves ergo oscillations. So how is it a "measure" of something came to be perceived as something tangible?. The same confusion seems to appear with respect to Faraday's "field" which is also not something in itself but a condition of something already present.

However the truth tends to come to light when we ask someone... "what is a field" and most have no idea. What is this something or term everyone uses so liberally yet have no idea what in fact it is?...

So how is it that so many could use a term so often and yet have literally no idea what in fact it is?. All this terminology, wave after wave of new terms, words, and yet at the end of the day most are no closer to the understanding they seek. It reminds me of a saying... we can talk the talk but it means nothing unless we can walk the walk.

In this respect the facts we know are much stranger than any fiction most can imagine. Every material thing is like a fog of charged particles in oscillation in a sea of waves, energy as motion, energy is motion. Nothing is or ever was tangible, it is an illusion, and if we could change or manipulate the kind of motion taking place on the atomic/particle level then literally anything is possible. What is free energy when literally everything everywhere is energy?.

As Einstein put it... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

That my friends is pure genius and it was Einstein's observation that the people who use the most complicated terminology and explanations seldom understand what there talking about. If they did they could explain everything in simply in terms even a child could understand and there lies the problem.


Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #92 on: May 08, 2021, 04:43:00 AM »
I don't quite understand what you are writing to be honest.
I personally am not attached to anything or anyone.
I’m here only because there’s a forum to discuss alternative physics issues. energy and so on.
Are you sure that this is a historical forum dedicated to Russia?

one of rules in physics is :
 single observable point of fact, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
- that in philosophy the mother of all sciences includes also  phenomena seen from  perspective of Russia and Western world.
  and phenomena we  are talking about  is history of science and  factors related, just because we have disagreement   about eter/eather
  rejected model after 1905,a%20simple%20point%20object%20and%20ignore%20the%20fuzziness.

Your last name  suggests its Ukrainian origin, but I didn't yet have interaction with any Ukrainian scientist  who would  in year 2021 vote for  widely in Russia  manifested  Eater/Ether .
 I as an American happened to  know about  that region of  Eastern  Europe and  I even speak Russian better than  average Russian from regions.
However  I got  this skills here in New York employing Russian scientists  lazy to learn English.

I do thank you for participating in this forum and you are welcome  here.
I do appreciate your position in given subject, and I respect your position as this is not Russia here and no banditism of any Eastern origin is affecting you  dear  Ilya
I'm able to understand your English too , and that skill is uncommon to most of Eastern Europe (of direct/indirect Russian influence.)


Einstein, first of all, contradicts himself with his thought experiment, where he flies on a frozen ray (wave) of light.
First of all, the contradiction itself arises for the reason that the presence of a ray of light in space is initially considered
in this image based on Maxwell's ideas about Ether, in which there is a medium in a frozen state.
That is, a thought experiment is based on an environment with some properties.

1. you not reading what I wrote.
2. you not answering  questions
3. you adding test without links
4. I'm confused as to  how to respond to your questions : :
    a. if intuitively - than we will have  Russian borscht .
        that is for me no way to be as tasty as Ukrainian.
    b. if based on facts , than please give me facts !!!!!!
        ,( links, quotes,  statements  and particular lines in question .)
    c. if my answer is to be kept  in relation to 19 century science format  I need quoted  and numbered  text.
if my answer is to be kept  in brackets of modern physic  of current time than  I will just present current position to  questioned phenomena.
I understand  that  you don't  want associate yourself with Russia  or its history  but:
I hope you understand me now.
In this part of the world we not only respect you but we also expect you to respect our , rules, and common format of communication:


I'm formulating my  answer according to point 4d.

Einstein was born in  March 14  of 1879 and at this time  Umv, Poynting and Heaviside were in the middle of  Ether/Eather controversy.
in 1895 Einstein was only 16 when he started to think about that what we now call
"...a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen:

Einstein's thought experiments took diverse forms.
In his youth, he mentally chased beams of light.
I propose a new way to read it that fits it nicely into the stages of Einstein's discovery of special relativity.
It shows the untenability of an "emission" theory of light, an approach to electrodynamic
theory that Einstein considered seriously and rejected prior to his breakthrough of 1905.

If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum),
I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating.
There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations.
From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything
would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest.
For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?
One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."

If the young Einstein were to chase after it at c, he would catch up with the wave and be moving with it, like a surfer riding the wave.
He would see a frozen lightwave.

The untenability of that thought led to the downfall of the great achievement of nineteenth century physics,
the ether, which then provided the basis for all electromagnetic theory.

The trouble is that it is quite unclear just how this thought creates difficulties for the ether.
Einstein gave three reasons and each of them could be answered readily by an able ether theorist.
look at picture below:
All you need  to do now  is to go to the link   here:

We are  all human animals including you Ilya.
We imagine  things  and not always right ,till we  think about it  again
and perfect that   thought experiment  to the point that is now ready to be presented to the world.
But at the end Einstein won big time.
All other thoughts of other  big names scientist are not important now as 19 century was  the  period of confusion and now is not.
Today's science  doesn't talk about two magnetic fields where one is rotated and we know that   EM wave  has electric field component and magnetic field component  at 90 degrees.
Source of EM wave  is not seen  from perspective of philosophical monkey but based on solid  and checked  science.

Because  you didn't provide necessary links , I did cut part of your text as my answer was  in format 4d

Offline Ilya Tsimbaluk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #93 on: May 08, 2021, 09:12:10 AM »
Greetings, as regards the force interaction of the Electric Field on the Coulomb torsion balance, it corresponds to the fact that the electric fields in the current day with the physical body are strong. which can be measured, which is what Pendant did.
This is what Milliken did with the Pendant.
The forceful interaction of the forces of gravity and the force of the electric field on a droplet of oil, which was carried out by Milliken and Ioffe, are regarded as forceful.

About the fact that Faraday and Einstein created space and time.
In fact, the idea was eventually expressed by Poincaré, and Lorentz's transformations by Lorentz.
Faraday had nothing to do with relativism. He only documented the experiments carried out. Maxwell made an attempt to write down his vision in mathematical form. Let me remind you that Maxwell was under the yoke of harsh criticism for 25 years, until Heaviside wrote down Maxwell's equations in vector form and understandable for the average person.

All attempts by Lorentz and Einstein consisted in a mathematical approach to define physical phenomena. And the difficulty was. that they had the complexity of the idea that two physical bodies in the same torsional balance of the pendant can have an intermediate medium, which is what the Force is.
But then Lorentz and Einstein were not focused on attention. Einstein caught on to the ideas of Poincaré and Lorentz, and the efforts of scientists of the late 19th and 20th centuries to determine the behavior of light in space relative to the emitter and receiver. which is on Earth. Then various hypotheses were put forward - Ether is completely motionless, carried away partially or completely carried away.

Lorenz and Morley considered their theory. in which the Earth moved relative to the motionless Ether. But here's the problem - if Ether or an intermediate medium is responsible for the force interaction of physical bodies and this force is connected. Like any with the field, then it would be necessary to talk about that. that there is a kind of moving field in space. which interacts with the Earth. But materialists or primates are always thinking. that it is the Earth that is the field. The earth in this case is a consequence. and not the reason for its movement.
It follows its field like a magnet. so the field follows the magnet. but if we have magnetic interactions of magnets. in which there are two physical bodies with mass, and an intermediate medium. which has an equivalent to this mass, but in an intermediate environment. That he began to describe Umov for the first time, putting forward views about the flow of energy and not only.

During the nineteenth century there were several speculative attempts to show that mass and energy were proportional in various ether theories.[45] In 1873 the Russian physicist and mathematician Nikolay Umov pointed out a relation between mass and energy for ether in the form of Е = kmc2, where 0.5 ≤ k ≤ 1.

And yes, the famous formula E = mc ^ 2 does not essentially belong to Einstein, it was also derived by Thomson and Heaviside. K = 1 was determined by Heaviside. that it was pointless to use k. Heaviside corresponded with Lorenz, the latter with Einstein. so that Einstein could not be unaware of these formulas. Everything. what Einstein did was use Poincaré's idea and Lorentz's ideas. But Lorenz, with all due respect at that time, acted mathematical juggling around strange ideas about Ether, which in his hypothesis were not confirmed.

However, here's the question, Umov did not expect to receive finances and grants, which the Western world is so abundant in, Heaviside also did not seek to do this. What's the first. that the second lived a modest life and the requirements of capital, which pays for science, did not interest them. They did that. what they were doing. Einstein clearly understood what he could play on and make money.

But what followed from Umov's logic? It followed from logic that in mechanics mechanical waves propagate at the speed of sound, and between magnets they interact with the speed of light. But it is known for sure that force interaction in statics or magnetism cannot do without matter, which maintains force in the physical world. hence it is necessary to introduce an intermediate environment. which is the movement of matter equivalent to the mass of the physical body with which this environment interacts. When asked how energy flows can be realized in thermodynamics or Electromagnetism, Umov came to the conclusion that this should be an intermediate medium. This idea was picked up by Pointing and independently of Poynting Heaviside.
precisely because of that. then Heaviside worked in telegraphy and considered the conductor as a waveguide, this is what allowed him to just consider the idea of ​​that. that Energy does not move along wires. and in the space around the waveguide.
But if Heaviside lived in times. when superconductors were discovered, he would immediately express his dissatisfaction with Thomson for what he called the luminescence in the tube moving particles of gases and cathodes ... that is. movement of charges in the conductor itself. After all, the Skin effect was first discovered by Heaviside. And from here it would follow that the current moves in space as a flow of energy having a mass. Thu is obvious, and Then many Nobel laureates would have to return the money back from the owner for the mediocre work done. But the question is - the owner himself. who paid for the work paid for what?

But let's get away from politics.
According to information reported at one time by V.N. Chikolev, the experiments on their use, demonstrated by Yablochkov at the Paris Exhibition of 1878, even aroused applause from visitors. The Paris Academy of Sciences was especially interested in Yablochkov's work, which formed a special commission to familiarize with it, which included such celebrities as Saint-Clair-Deville, Edmond Becquerel, Berthelot and others. At the meeting of the Academy, Ing. Deneyruz, speaking of the kaolin lamp, characterized Yablochkov's inventions in this way:

In explanations of the privilege, Yablochkov writes: “In order to obtain useful effects from the current delivered by the source of dynamic electricity, instead of connecting the terminals of the current source together with a continuous circuit, as This is done up to now, causing the dynamic electricity delivered by the electricity source to undergo a double transformation - first into static electricity and then back into dynamic electricity. This is the principle of my system. I carry it out as follows: instead of connecting the terminals of the current source with a continuous circuit, as has been done so far, I connect the conductor coming from one terminal of the electricity source to one of the plates of the capacitor, consisting of one or more Leiden jars of a larger surface or arranged according to the directions below.

The impulse technique immediately assumed that the current does not move in a continuous and integral flow, this energy moves in waves and the higher the frequency, the shallower this flow enters. The nodes and antinodes of the current were already known, which makes the idea of ​​a chain moving in the form of a continuous movement of electrons meaningless. in the War of currents, Tesla just wanted to show something. what is called the current at high frequencies moves across the surface and voltage. which we simply use as a term has a direct relation to the theories of Umov, Poynting Heaviside as to processes remote from the conductor, in which, according to Druda, less and less this energy flow interacts with the crystal lattice of the conductor itself, leading to Joule-Lenz heat losses.

Offline Ilya Tsimbaluk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #94 on: May 08, 2021, 10:06:56 AM »
For Wisley

Greetings. You have a lot of equipment, I would love to work in the laboratory, with such a variegated set of measuring equipment. Considering that you have a professional video camera and video editing equipment. but as I understand it, you are not involved in professional filming and editing. And many interesting things could be done.

The only thing for which you received criticism, which you considered aggressive, is your politicized videos in which some inventor was killed. In the video itself, this inventor is 20 years old at most, does not live in Russia, he showed a fake and a show, but you dramatized. that he was killed by Putin's henchmen, the FSB-schnicks. But there were no men in black, no KGB or FBI. Why in your country they kill thousands of UFO witnesses and dispensers of free energy, and you are not talking about that? Are you dancing to the tune of the World Government in the person of the Illuminati, or are you in cahoots with the Freemasons who force babies to drink blood, engage in homosexuality and be involved in the orgies of Satan himself?

You have the opportunity to make cool vlogs, and experiment with that set - I suggest you do an interesting job. And if you want to make an art series with cannibals in black suits. then do it creatively.

So write, we will communicate. But not politics with a depressing connotation of mass shootings of seekers of free energy with reference to the locality with the word Russia. I don't like depression. why I'm watching a video with Searl, because this guy talks about positive and inspiring things, and a dying old woman on a modest retirement in the Russian wilderness is a very sad topic for discussion. I'm sure. what if you collect all the dying old women including Africa. it will be possible to make a film for those who want to commit suicide from the injustice of the world. Life goes on and I don't want to think about it. because all I can do is show the world that. what I can.

So write if you want to talk about science and technology in a personal message.

About Lorentz and Einstein. who took the Lorentz transformations.
The question is that the idea of ​​the inconsistency of Morley's thought was, like Lorentz and Einstein, that it was the signal source and the receiver that moved at the same time.
However, Lorentz and not only he grasped the idea that if the ray moves relative to the stationary ether. in which it has not yet been determined - and why it should be motionless, moreover. that Heaviside identified some points associated with the Casimir effect, what is it like space or environment.

The absurdity of posing the question lies in the fact that the beam emitted by the emitter moves with a speed relative to some absolute space. We mentally define this absolute either by the solar coordinate system or other other usual Euclidean geometry. But if we are considering exactly the Euclidean geometry, then mentally determining the absolute point from which we build our representations of the motion of the Earth, then we know exactly what speed the Earth has relative to the Sun. So, according to Ritz's ballistic theory, we should have the formula v + c. The receiver moves with the transmitter. therefore, we must describe the receiver as -v.
The only question is that Dirac did not yet exist, who began to ask questions of signs, but we can just describe -v, because wherever energy with a positive sign is outraged, there is also its negative or opposing Energy, which develops with dualistic Newton's representations of F = -F and not only.
And hence v-v + c = c.

But more on that later.

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5010
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #95 on: May 08, 2021, 03:12:47 PM »
I do not understand the contradiction !

Beside e=hv=hc/λ

 we have E = mc2         

( not E=Mc2 ) because            m result from = M1 ( mass M before acceleration) -M2 ( mass "virtual" lost during acceleration)

                                           denomination :    Relativistic mass

Clearly we work with positive and negative force or energy arrows,ac-/de-celerating  !

"Gedankenexperiment"  : physics-experimental Ueberlichtgeschwindigkeit and Effekt

At the University of Cologne , which has meanwhile been checked several times by other institutions, it has been proven that the quantum mechanical tunneling of photons can lead to effects that some researchers interpret as superluminal velocities. However, the interpretations of these observations are currently still controversial.

When measuring quantum mechanically entangled particles, information seems to be transmitted instantaneously between the particles (i.e. without a time difference) (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, or EPR effect for short ). However, it is not possible to use this effect for communication at faster than light speeds.

In September 2011, the OPERA collaboration on Gran Sasso reported that they had found indications that neutrinos had moved faster than light. However, a new measurement by ICARUS has shown agreement with the speed of light, whereby the OPERA result is very likely to be refuted. See Neutrino Velocity Measurements for more details .

Offline Ilya Tsimbaluk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #96 on: May 08, 2021, 04:54:28 PM »
In fact, Umov wrote this formula, then this coefficient changed and Hevside ude set 1 as the coefficient, which ultimately made it possible to remove this coefficient altogether.

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5010
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #97 on: May 08, 2021, 07:25:20 PM »
Bow ey,an overunity "money generation" system : perpetuum ?  8) ;)

Original theme related :



                                    partial the investment high difference : energetic output related !

Nice lecture related "fusion"-technology :

Offline Ilya Tsimbaluk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #98 on: May 09, 2021, 12:06:57 AM »
It's hard for me to say what you are talking about now. I work in my laboratory for my own money. Everyone is on enthusiasm

Offline Ilya Tsimbaluk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #99 on: May 09, 2021, 12:12:59 AM »
The GPS sync problem

Ronald Hutch is a renowned specialist in the field of GPS (Global Navigation Systems) and satellite communication systems, the inventor of the "Hutch filter" widely known in electronics and information processing systems, President of ION (Institute of Space Navigation Systems), the organization that hosted the first GPS conference. with about 2,000 members.

GPS presents us with a different problem. It is well known that the GPS satellite system was developed in the USA. The Ministry of Defense ensures the highest accuracy of means of determining both position and time everywhere on the surface of the Earth and its surroundings. But GPS clocks (and even terrestrial clocks) present us with such a problem, which is not very well known, that the solutions to this problem admitted in it are undoubtedly wrong from the point of view of SRT.
The GPS clock shows, as expected, that the moving clock is running slower and that the clock is running slower at a lower gravitational potential.
The GPS clock is adjusted for the expected deceleration before launch into orbit, taking into account that the Earth's gravitational potential at nominal orbit altitude makes it run faster. This faster clock rate is a partial compensation for the effect of the nominal cyclic orbital speed of the satellites.
There are two interesting interactions between the effects of gravitational potential and the effects of speed in clock readings. First, at sea level, all clocks on Earth run at the same speed. This is due to the fact that the rotation of the Earth causes it to swell at the equator, since the gravitational potential is higher there. (A clock at the equator is farther from the center of the Earth.) The effect in clock readings from this large potential at the equator and the effect in clock readings from rotational speed exactly cancel each other out. So the clock at the equator is equal to the clock at the poles.
The second interaction of gravitational potential and speed in clock readings is due to the eccentricity of the GPS orbit. At perigee, the lower gravitational potential causes the GPS clock to run slower than nominal. Also at perigee, the satellites move faster than average and this also makes the GPS clock run slower - with exactly the same amount. So it seems that energy is what makes the clock go at a different pace. The increasing gravitational potential energy makes the clock run faster. The increasing kinetic energy (speed) causes the watch to run slower.
So what's the problem with the watch? The problem manifests itself, contrary to expectations, with clocks on Earth that do not seem to be affected by the sun's gravitational potential. Why is that? For clocks tied to Earth, the problem has been described as a noon-midnight problem. At noon, the clock is closer to the Sun by the diameter of the Earth than the clock at midnight. Thus, the clock is expected to run slower at noon than at midnight due to the solar gravitational potential, but this is not observed.
The first proposed solution to the noon-midnight problem was put forward by Banesh Hoffmann [2] in an article entitled "Midday-midnight redshift." The article states that the potential gravitational effect does not take place, since it is compensated by the relativistic Doppler effect. Thus, the author says that, like a clock at sea level, there is a mutual destruction of velocity and potential effects. In a nutshell, Hoffman states that since the point on Earth closest to the Sun and the point on Earth farthest from the movement around the Sun have different speeds, they will have clock-moving effects that are different from those seen in orbital movement around the Earth.
It is true that the clock that orbits the Sun in a year along the radius of the Earth's midnight must have the same course as the clock that orbits the Sun in a year along the radius of the Earth's midnight, that is, the potential gravitational difference must be compensated for by the speed difference. But Hoffmann's explanation cannot be accepted. This is contrary to the behavior of the GPS watch. The difference in solar gravitational potential for GPS synchronized at a point closest to the Sun and farthest from the Sun (the difference in distance is approximately four times the Earth's diameter) does not seem to have any effect on the GPS clock. Undoubtedly, these points in orbit fly around the Sun at different speeds. The planes of GPS satellite orbits do not rotate in the same way as the earth's orbit around the sun. However, they move around the Sun at the same speed. That the earth's axis of rotation does not change as the earth's orbit around the sun should be sufficient to deny Hoffmann's explanation. Rotation of the noon-midnight point of the Earth does not imply that the Earth's IRS undergoes annual rotation. A different explanation is needed for the missing effect.
An alternative attempt at explanation can be found in the literature. The article by Ashby and Bertotti [3], entitled "Relativistic Effects in Local IRF", requires that the acceleration of gravity produces a fictitious gravitational field that neutralizes the real field. The easiest way to read a version of the same argument is in a comprehensive book on GPS [4].
The problem of Ashby et al. Argumentation in the use of the equivalence principle. Here is a quote from page 686 of the source [4].
The equivalence principle implies that an observer in free fall in the gravitational field of the solar system cannot sense the presence of external gravitational fields. Although there is a gravitational force fieldobserver's instant free-fall position (force per unit mass) in the, this field produces an acceleration  fall of the observer. Due to this acceleration, an additional dummy the gravitational field is generated in the observer's CO. Two fields - one real and one induced compensate each other; the total field strength at the observer's position is zero. This implies that the gravitational potential in the area of ​​free fall of the observer cannot have any linear conditions in spatial coordinates. Only quadratic conditions can be maintained - these are tidal conditions. Tidal conditionsassociated with these residual effects - minor-in GPS.
It is the last two sentences of this quote that are the subject of discussion. As Michael Friedman [5] in The Foundations of Space-Time Theory, so Ciufolini and Wheeler [6] in Gravity and Inertia tell us that the principle of equivalence is not strictly observed in the local area, but in an infinitely small area. Let me refer to Friedman, p. 202, in some detail.
The standard formulation of the equivalence principle obscures the critical distinction between first-order and second-order laws, blurring the distinction between "infinitesimal" laws, valid at a single point, and local laws, obeying a neighborhood of a point. They lose the distinction between the structure of the space tangent to Tp and the configuration of the spaces tangent to Tq for q in a neighborhood of p. (This is one placewhere the casual attitude physics in relation to the "infinitely small" leads him to the realproblem!) What is undoubtedly the principle of equivalence says, then what special relativity and general relativity say, meaning the same "infinitesimal" structure, but not the one that is the local structure.
It is clear that in the extended domain (neighborhood), the potential gradient cannot be accurately eliminated by simply using the equivalence principle. On page 14, Suefolini and Wheeler talk about the weak principle of equivalence, "the principle can be reformulated by saying that in every local, non-rotating, freely falling frame of reference, the line accompanying the free fall of the test particle is a straight line." To straighten the lines in the region of this free fall of the test particle, it is required that the frame of reference rotates once in one orbit so that the neighboring point remains adjacent to the test particle and follows it in an equivalent straight path. This rotation is exactly what Hoffman suggests to explain the loss of the clock effect in the first article we referred to above. Thus, Ashby et al. Explain the absence of differential clock effects in GPS satellites from solar gravitational potential as a consequence of the equivalence principle. But they are wrong when they apply a result that is valid only over an infinitesimal area in a large area. So Ashby et al. Failed, like Hoffmann, in providing an explanation for the missing differential effect of solar gravitational potential in clocks near Earth. However, some other explanations are still needed for the missing effect. (See the mathematical appendix associated with the above statements.)
So what is the explanation for the absence of any effects of solar gravitational potential on clocks near Earth? Why don't we find the correct explanation in the literature? The answer to the first of these two questions was not difficult. Similar to the VLBI analysis, the answer can be found by using the solar inertial reference frame to analyze the data. When we do this using the speeds and positions in the solar IFR and the gravitational potentials of both the Earth and the Sun, the solution to the first question will become obvious. In the solar IFR, the solar gravitational potential causes "along the speed" of the clock displacement (relative to the clocks synchronized in the Earth IFR) rotate so that they remain "along the speed", since the velocity vector changes direction due to the solar gravitational force. In other words, the gradient of the gravitational potential (gravitational force) causes the Earth's velocity vector to change direction. The same gradient of the gravitational potential forces the clock near the Earth to work in such a rhythm that the clock changes its course so as to maintain it in the direction "along the speed". This way, a clear absence of the effect in the terrestrial IFR is ensured simply, since they are absorbed as part of the Lorentz transformation from solar IFR to terrestrial IFR. In other words, it is the action of the solar potential that keeps the clock synchronized in the direction-of-speed, so that the speed of light is measured the same as in the Earth's IFR.
The answer to the second question is a little more speculative. If the solar gravitational potential is part of the mechanism that leaves the speed of light apparently isotropic in the terrestrial IFR, the Lorentz transformation can decompose into two components. One part should reflect the position and speed of one inertial reference frame relative to the other, that is, the Selleri transformation [7], and the second part should be the clock rate distribution, which makes the speed of light isotropic in the new inertial reference frame. And this is a mechanism for replacing magic with Lorentz transformations. He implies that Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) should be replaced by the Etheric Theory of Lorentz (ETL). But such a replacement would be a scandal.

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #100 on: May 09, 2021, 02:48:18 AM »
answer to Ilya

The GPS sync problem
 One part should reflect the position and speed of one inertial reference frame relative to the other,
that is, the Selleri transformation [7], and the second part should be the clock rate distribution,
which makes the speed of light isotropic in the new inertial reference frame. And this is a mechanism
for replacing magic with Lorentz transformations.
He implies that Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) should be replaced by the Etheric Theory of Lorentz (ETL).
But such a replacement would be a scandal.

Dear Ilya please provide:
1. link to the article.
2. source of the article
3. time of publication
4. author  of publication
I will be glad if the article  is not of Russian origin but that is not mandatory requirement.

Short comment :
The GPS Clock is a satellite system that provides a very precise timing service.
The system uses atomic clocks to provide everyone on Earth with low-cost access to international atomic time standards.

The GPS system is based on atomic clock technology.

Each GPS satellite has multiple atomic clocks, synchronized to a ground-based master clock.

The GPS clock provides everyone on Earth with access to atomic time standards without needing a local atomic clock.
GPS time transfer accuracy is within 40 nanoseconds of UTC


Ronald Hutch , the inventor of the "Hutch filter"  President of ION
Such person doesn't exist and never existed:
There was different person Ron Hatch
-private consultant , one of employees( officers) of Navigation Systems Engineering
 he  worked  for  John Deere, utility tractor,lawn and garden equipment
 one of these  who was send by  agriculture equipment company to create
 NavCom    for  plant farming .
At that time  there was Selective Availability  accuracy on the order of 3 m. In practice, typical accuracy is about 15 m.
There was some controversy  about information licking to Russians building  Russian Glonass system,
He was never formally accused.
He wrote  article: Escape from Einstein
Hatch in 1995 presented data contradicting the special theory of relativity, and promoted a Lorentzian alternative described as an ether gauge theory
Some Lorentz Transformations are formed by doing “many” infinitesimal ones.
These will have the property of being proper and orthochronous .

If QFT is to be consistent with relativity, it should be invariant under proper, orthochronous
Lorentz Transformations.
That means we should be able to replace x with Λx at any time without changing anything.

SRT is completely erroneous since it is based on the wrong kind of transformations:
they have lost the scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect. First, Lorentz considered
a more general form of transformations (with a scale factor),
but then he, and also Poincare and Einstein equated it 1 without proper grounds.
Their form was artificially narrowed, the formulas became incorrect.
This led to a logical contradiction of the theory, to unsolvable paradoxes.
Accordingly, GRT is also incorrect.
 For more details, : brochure "Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory
but......( the please read summary below to understand that there is no way  to understand it as
support to  Ether.)

The "Hatch filter" is mentioned in publication but  patent was not found by me .

for  summary  please look  down below  at part#2

« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 01:46:11 PM by stivep »

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #101 on: May 09, 2021, 02:08:15 PM »

answer to Ilya

Ilya was providing evidence and support to ether/eather   theory (dead now)
He was acting as comparator at some points too.
But  for comparing something measurable with a reference or standard you need to  have standard.
And even if Ilya doesn't like it  - that standard  is   SRT now.   

Comparison as a Tool  of science:
Because Eather /Ether was/is widely  manifested  in Russia
( also by some respected  there  scientists)-I gave you nonorthodox to  Russian  reality set of  different approaches  to SRT
But in my mind  banditism in Russia  - in any area including science is not kosher so you have no problem guys. :)

Banditism :
-organized crime  typically involving the threat or use of violence. in some countries.
   Russian RF might be seen by some....  as  government structure  acting as
   the biggest organized mafia in the history  of modern  world.
   Science there is  often seen  as  "just a tool" used and abused, raped  and deformed  based  on  actual
   need of  individual rulers benefiting from  corrupted  reality.
   e.g Russian history as science of facts is  the best example of such deformation.
comparison- is   the one of fundamental tools of science 
but   exactly today  the new law in Russia is being formulated
 stating that  some form of comparison are punished by law.
and today is a day when  starting from 1945  many countries  of Eastern Europe were enslaved  by Soviet terror  till  the collapse of soviet Union in 1990

PhD Stephen Hicks wrote book called :
‘Soviets were worse than Nazis’

- the response  by Russian government is not to explain and provide evidence but to 
ban, any examining of scientifically valid  historical truth.
   Russian propaganda  says:
The same is  with Ether/eather..
I provided both
(the  for and the against  postulates ) for  Eather  that is dead now ,
That doesn't mean that I want to reincarnate Eather
Everything around you that is based on  SRT. is   
perfectly well working and is providing evidence
of its accuracy .

With due respect to Ilya  no longer willing to be  identified  as Russian.
when we talking about - comparison in science,  we also talk about similarity -as tool of science
For me Ilya  uses tools similar to  Russian propaganda.

Ilya didn't provide identity  of
Ron Hatch but he used  his postulates.
Ilya didn't provide any links to any material quoted or posted by him.
Dear Ilya  almost everything I write to you is supported by links- this is  how science talks  in civilized western world
But  the most important in science is  its response to the postulates.
So  Ilya can't give us  not even  one  example of supporting evaluation of

Ron Hatch revelation  about eter/eather. - I assume :)

legal note: opinion expressed i entirely  my own according to constitution of USA

« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 04:35:37 PM by stivep »

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #102 on: May 09, 2021, 02:54:00 PM »
By the way Ilya .
I'm impressed with the beauty of the house I assumed is yours and  excellent picture you posted.
Is it that cold there now in May?

Thank you Dear Ilya, and I would love to see more  of it.

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #103 on: May 09, 2021, 03:04:12 PM »

Offline Ilya Tsimbaluk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #104 on: May 09, 2021, 03:52:58 PM »
Greetings Wesley.

You ask me to give a link.
Lots of stuff. which has to be translated from PDF format and manually, so I personally lose touch with the basic material that I have.
I try not to alter the material itself in any way. therefore errors. which may be here - the result of machine translation in Google.

Regarding the fact that we are arguing about the term Ether, I am only trying to make it clear that the term Ether impresses me more, because it is associated with something filled. A physical vacuum or emptiness is associated with something empty, although in fact, as shown by the worldview, this is not so. Which makes me personally consider these processes as processes in Ether.

You have a lot of equipment and an excellent system for video editing. now we have excellent sunny, albeit cool weather, which is good news.
Why am I trying to piece together evidence of the failure of relativism? There is only one reason - it is too primitive and consists in studying natural phenomena with mathematical abstraction.

The experiments that we conducted and in which, in my opinion. I can consider the experiments successful, just say that the environment itself. in which that is. what is the equivalent of power has to do with this fabric of the universe. it is difficult for me to find these epithets yet.
But the question is how it stands. that we have two kinds of interaction. namely:
Interaction of physical bodies
Interaction in the environment. in which this interaction is transferred from the potential form of energy. into kinetic form (magnetic field) and back to potential form.
From here we can say that the process itself was initiated by the physical body. as a result of which, for 1 Joule of this initiation, we could get 1 joule of work and 1 Joule in the form of a capacitor charge + Heat
For this, we use LTSpice as a process simulation.

For. to show that 2 J per 1 J was obtained, we would need to make a more accurate setting. in which we would need a high-temperature superconductor and a company in Moscow provided us with 9 meters. But there would be a lot of difficulty with the acquisition of Dewar vessels (storage of liquid nitrogen) would be difficult. Therefore, for the time being, we decided to leave these experiments.

In fact, since 2018, we have been working in order to work out the concept and physical foundations. on which our concept would have to be implemented in real devices. the main task is to create an electric motor with greater efficiency.

However, a strange question would arise - what is efficiency and what are we talking about.
we wanted to say that the experiment could be on a more perfect setup. which would allow Joel to observe the energy output more. than the standard installation. This did not quite lead him to the correct conclusion.

we did experiments. to understand the most correct conclusion to what is the impedance at the physical level and by what method the energy can be destroyed, as it happens in modern installations.

Since the search for funding involves the creation of a prototype, we decided to put superconductors aside for the time being. So now with an engineer. which appeared in my team, we plan to do an experiment in order to get closer to the electric motor itself and at the same time check the concept finally and start prototyping the device in the future. which could be demonstrated to a potential investor.

Probably move away from the superconductor and try with it. in order to show the excess of the outgoing energy in its pure form, it was necessary for that very reason. that the physics of processes is not of interest to a potential investor. He can only be interested in a working prototype. This is our focus now.

and how I speak. I have to deal with the physics itself. with which we are dealing. Because it is very difficult to explain to a representative of academic science about that. what is energy and why we have more of it in our installation.
The question with here is that initially, the usual idea of ​​charge, energy and other physical phenomena has not been rewritten for more than 200 years, although today we are debating about Ether or Physical Vacuum with its virtual particles and Dirac holes.

Work. which I am currently running is the team's enthusiasm and funds. Therefore, not everything I can do quickly and efficiently. But to put an end to the erroneousness of Einstein's ideas, I'm just trying to translate the scan from the 1991 article.