Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: onepower on June 07, 2022, 10:49:29 PM
-
Overunity,
1. Also called: perpetual motion of the first kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. It is impossible in practice because of friction.
2. Also called: perpetual motion of the second kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that derives its energy from a source at a lower temperature. It is impossible in practice because of the second law of thermodynamics
I will break this down for clarity...
1) perpetual motion of the first kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. It is impossible in practice because of friction.
First, what is a "mechanism", a mechanism is defined as a system or structure of moving parts that performs some function.
As such an atom is a mechanism which has moving parts and performs a vital function we call matter. Atoms also contain Electrons, Protons and Neutrons which are in perpetual motion. As well all astronomical bodies, ie. in outer space, are mechanisms having many parts which obviously perform a function we call the universe. All the atoms and astronomical bodies are known to be in perpetual motion because the space between the stuff in question is devoid of matter and has no friction.
As such one has to wonder who came up with these absurd and contradictory definitions. I mean, it is contrary to everything even our children are taught in grade school and a display of gross ignorance to all of nature in my opinion.
2)Also called: perpetual motion of the second kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that derives its energy from a source at a lower temperature. It is impossible in practice because of the second law of thermodynamics.
I call this equally nonsensical argument the "thermodynamics gambit".
This nonsensical argument also relies on ignorance versus the actual facts of a matter. For example, a fission reactor is a mechanism, it also derives it's energy from a source at a lower temperature. This is true because the energy source is the perpetual motion of the Electrons, Protons, Neutrons of the atom configured in a given geometry as an element, usually uranium. The temperature, a measure of molecular motion, is different than the atomic/kinetic energy of particles. In fact there is a growing body of evidence that fusion can be performed on any element/material. We could be fusing household garbage for energy in the future.
Here's a clue, what is the temperature of an electric or magnetic field?. Uhm, wait a minute, what?...
You see we can't measure the temperature of a Primary Field because it's not a material thing like matter but it's in perpetual motion and it's a property of matter and space directly related to energy.
Here's another clue, What is energy?. Energy is the capacity of something to perform work, work is a force causing something to move through a distance. Key word... move. All energy relates to the motion of something and since Energy/motion is always conserved it cannot be destroyed. Key word... perpetual, because it cannot be destroyed it must always remain in motion perpetually. What part of perpetual do people not understand?...
This keeps topic keeps coming up over and over and to be honest it's absurd. There is literally no valid argument against perpetual motion because the conservation of energy demands everything must be in perpetual motion... all energy is motion on some level.
Regards
AC
-
If you think about the big picture "Over Unity" is hydrogen as all life on this planet must have it to live as this world already runs on hydrogen. Without hydrogen there would be no life on this planet and anything alive is by definition in a state of over unity and main stream science has no idea how things are alive or what gives things life to begin with.
The reason why no one ever solved the work of Stanley Meyer like I did was due to capitalism as that system puts profit above all else. You see when they were looking to understand how plants work they saw that it produce electricity from sun light and then all their minds could think of is, "If we figure out how a plant does this we can then put electricity on the grid system and get paid." This is the main reason why they never asked the question, "How does a plant break the bonds of the water molecules?" as their minds saw a money making opportunity which narrows their focus and thus they simply never even noticed that the plant broke the bonds of the water molecules outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. Even I was shocked to find out that question I had asked was an original question that no one had ever asked before let alone answered. Once I answered that question I then move to solve how Meyer's technology actually worked as the transformer is merely mimicking the earth's global electric circuit.
Most scientist call this technology a perpetual motion device but that's all due to their greed in always looking for money making opportunities and thus failing to ask the right questions as a result of the primary goal of capitalism.
"All Molecules can be separated into their component atoms by taking away the electrons from the atoms that make up the molecules."
This theory is far more important than even I thought now that I understand that it's helpful in understanding how life is made to be and what keeps life going. Basically with this water for fuel technology we are tapping into the very wheelwork of life where water is not destroyed as it is only barrowed and in doing so this technology is indeed in a state of over unity and puts out more energy than it consumes. All of this is something that now needs to be put in our books of science as the theory is very far reaching as any method one can think of in getting the electrons away from their atoms will cause the molecule they have formed to be broken down, as that is how acid base reaction work, correct? and those type of reactions are responsible for how most things that I know of live. So, I guess it's a theory that explains over unity/ perpetual motion in a way. As this car here in this video is able to run due to a chemical reaction where the electrons are taken from the atoms that make up the water molecules to make another molecule that doesn't require all the hydrogen found in water. [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-uSU0O078A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-uSU0O078A)[/size] As again any way you can get the electrons away from their atoms will work in breaking the bonds of the water molecules and this is being done with a reaction with Aluminum and water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd157yBmNaM&ab_channel=LabTVonline (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd157yBmNaM&ab_channel=LabTVonline) But as Dr. Dingle and Meyer showed us if you ionized the atoms that make up the water molecules the atoms will release their electrons and again you get the hydrogen you need to run your vehicle. Plus Meyer showed us a way to get more energy out of the hydrogen oxygen reaction by breaking down the oxygen molecules and then striping that electrons away from the lone oxygen atoms and feeding those oxygen atoms into the combustion chamber to be reacted with hydrogen.
Most people know plants break down the water molecules (but not exactly how it does it), but they also break down carbon dioxide, and nitrogen molecules by this very same method of taking the electrons away from the atoms that make up the molecules. Even in our stomachs we have hydrochloric acid to do the same thing to break the bonds of molecules so that our bodies can get at the needed items in the food we eat. Now you can see just how important this theory I came up with actually is as it explains a lot of things we didn't know was going on behind the scenes. This is the beauty of making use of the scientific method on things we don't understand as if you do gain an understanding of what is actually taking place it just might be something profound and new to the world of science.
Shalom Everyone,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me (https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me)
-
Excellent Thread and excellent explanation and conclusion on your first post, AC!!
Very clear and very precise to the point...
The Conservation of Energy Law is exactly that, a Law of Motion Perpetual itself.
Contradictions we had (and still have) at their max levels!!
However, I would like to clarify by establishing the "technical" difference between the terms...Overunity and Motion Perpetual.
Overunity is a Mathematical Term, a very simple one...it is part of a "scale" or a range from only three (3) general statistics points, where the center point is "Unity" or Mathematically 1/1, (one unit dividing one unit) of whatever parameters we consider, no restrictions here.
Therefore, the other two points are very simple to understand...Under Unity and Over Unity.
Where the divider of Unity (1) is always set at the lower side or the "divided by"...
When it comes to Input-Output Systems, the Divider (lower side) is always chosen as the "Input", as Output is always on the top side.
And so, when we make the simple Mathematical dividing operation, we obtain what is called the COP term or Coefficient Of Performance, and Efficiency given in percentage by multiplying it by 100%.
So, not to complicate this simple equation, let's use "Energy" as the simplest term which could include all other parameters involved...like Voltage, Amperage, Watts, Heat, Mechanical work, etc,etc.
Say we have a Motor, which takes (Input) 5 units of Energy and produces a mechanical Output of 4 units of Energy...
Simply we do our "Unity" math...4 divided by 5 = 0.8 X 100%= 80%
So, our Motor have an Efficiency of 80% or a COP of 0.8
And so, let's say our Motor increased its performance, by adding some strong Neo Magnets, instead of previous ceramic type...which ends up generating a total of 4.8 Units of Energy...and then:
4.8 divided by 5 = 0.96 X 100%= 96%
Then our Motor increased its COP to 0.96...or a Total Efficiency to 96%
The main point about all above explanation, is to establish the real term of OVERUNITY...and where it comes from...and what it applies to...
So, it is very absurd, non sensical, an "oxymoron", stupid and then some more... to say that "Overunity does not exist"...or "Overunity can never take place"...
Overunity is a Mathematical Status, it can be applied to absolutely any System in our Universe...which as you wrote, could expand to our Planet, Galaxies, Solar Systems, and many more as our imagination could travel...and imagine.
So, basically about Motion Perpetual, you have already done an excellent job on your post, so no need to add absolutely anything...
Regards
Ufopolitics
-
Overunity is freely and asymmetrically regauging of potentials that then do the work for you.
The VIC regauges an electrostatic scalar potential which is not allowed to be consumed (by magnetics) when doing the free work=F * s work.
-
1. Also called: perpetual motion of the first kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. It is impossible in practice because of friction.
2. Also called: perpetual motion of the second kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that derives its energy from a source at a lower temperature. It is impossible in practice because of the second law of thermodynamics
1-What if We learn how to manipulate...an "Entity" which can move through dense mass metals without causing any friction, absolutely zero friction...?
2-What if that "Entity" when passing through all metals on its operation, does not generates any heat, absolutely zero heat?
Then what are we going to do with those ancient laws?
Rewrite them...?
Add "exemptions to"...?
That "Entity" is called the Magnetic Field...
Regards
Ufopolitics
-
So far we have been enclosing, enveloping, cloistering that "Super Entity" inside steel and copper...forcing it to spin at "our" very low speeds to generate Energy...and in some cases we have force that very Dynamic Entity to "stay static"...not to move, while we move steel and copper around it...
By forcing it to "stay still" or to be carried on steel and copper cages like if it was Handicapped...?
When that Entity can travel itself faster than Light?
When that Entity can go through all dense materials like steel and copper in a matter of nanoseconds without causing any heat?
How absurd that process have been so far?
But, finally that Entity would be released...and very free to travel, move, spin at very high speeds...
Regards
Ufopolitics
-
Ufopolitics
Overunity is a Mathematical Term, a very simple one...it is part of a "scale" or a range from only three (3) general statistics points, where the center point is "Unity" or Mathematically 1/1, (one unit dividing one unit) of whatever parameters we consider, no restrictions here.
Therefore, the other two points are very simple to understand...Under Unity and Over Unity.
Where the divider of Unity (1) is always set at the lower side or the "divided by"...
The term Unity and overunity also goes much deeper into ancient cultures and technology.
In fact Nikola Tesla and many other inventors were obsessed with the number 3 relating to the "Trinity of Unity" dating back to Sumerian cultures. The trinity of unity relates to the three conditions surrounding the concept of unity, to be born from zero and to die in zero.
That is +1<<<0>>>-1
and +1>>>0<<<-1
Or in philosophy any two opposite conditions (male/female, pressure/suction, positive/negative, North/South) generated from something which appears to have neither condition or zero. The zero condition is always found in the center between the two opposite conditions. Like a magnet N<<<0>>>S, or a capacitor/dielectric (+)<<<0>>>(-).
Today we generally call it generation/dissipation of a condition. For example, Protons(+) and electrons(-) close together negate/cancel there external field to become zero, +1>>>0<<<-1. However if we separate the same charges we can produce two distinct positive/negative conditions, +1<<<0>>>-1. Energy is generated from the source +1<<<0>>>-1, then moves towards the the point of dissipation +1>>>0<<<-1. Energy is born from zero and then dies in zero, which is Unity.
In essence this relates to what your talking about with efficiency and COP...
We generate an energy source by separating the zero state into two different conditions having a difference in potential, +1<<<0>>>-1.
We dissipate an energy source by reuniting two different conditions having a difference in potential to become zero, +1>>>0<<<-1.
If we dissipate more energy than we generate it is COP<1 or less than 100%, under unity.
If we generate more energy that we dissipate it is COP>1 or more than 100%, over unity.
If generation equals dissipation COP=1 or 100% efficiency, unity.
So you are correct that Unity (under<<<0>>>over) is a mathematical construct but it was developed by cultures tens of thousands of years ago. It can become a bit of a rabbit hole but the philosophy of the number three and the trinity of unity starts in ancient Sumeria then spreads to ancient Greece, Egypt(Hermes Trismegistus) and India(Vedic, Sanskrit text).
It's actually kind of funny that almost nobody could figure out why Tesla and countless other scientists and inventors were obsessed with the number three. They were all studying the science and technology of these ancient cultures. Throughout the history of mankind these themes keep popping up... the number 3, Unity, the Trinity of Unity.
Now we know the rest of the story and it's really fascinating stuff...
Regards
AC
-
How is this electric motor arranged?
Used in VCRs.
So far no one has been able to answer. ;)
-
How is this electric motor arranged?
Used in VCRs.
So far no one has been able to answer. ;)
That is a typical brush motor...and have a servo-speed sensor built inside (a Black-White marked Disk with a photo cell reader)
It was the old ways that they kept speed regulated...
But this is off topic friend.
-
That "Entity" is called the Magnetic Field...
The magnetic field does not pass through ferromagnets.Isn't it ?
-
Ufopolitics
The term Unity and overunity also goes much deeper into ancient cultures and technology.
In fact Nikola Tesla and many other inventors were obsessed with the number 3 relating to the "Trinity of Unity" dating back to Sumerian cultures. The trinity of unity relates to the three conditions surrounding the concept of unity, to be born from zero and to die in zero.
That is +1<<<0>>>-1
and +1>>>0<<<-1
Or in philosophy any two opposite conditions (male/female, pressure/suction, positive/negative, North/South) generated from something which appears to have neither condition or zero. The zero condition is always found in the center between the two opposite conditions. Like a magnet N<<<0>>>S, or a capacitor/dielectric (+)<<<0>>>(-).
Today we generally call it generation/dissipation of a condition. For example, Protons(+) and electrons(-) close together negate/cancel there external field to become zero, +1>>>0<<<-1. However if we separate the same charges we can produce two distinct positive/negative conditions, +1<<<0>>>-1. Energy is generated from the source +1<<<0>>>-1, then moves towards the the point of dissipation +1>>>0<<<-1. Energy is born from zero and then dies in zero, which is Unity.
In essence this relates to what your talking about with efficiency and COP...
We generate an energy source by separating the zero state into two different conditions having a difference in potential, +1<<<0>>>-1.
We dissipate an energy source by reuniting two different conditions having a difference in potential to become zero, +1>>>0<<<-1.
If we dissipate more energy than we generate it is COP<1 or less than 100%, under unity.
If we generate more energy that we dissipate it is COP>1 or more than 100%, over unity.
If generation equals dissipation COP=1 or 100% efficiency, unity.
So you are correct that Unity (under<<<0>>>over) is a mathematical construct but it was developed by cultures tens of thousands of years ago. It can become a bit of a rabbit hole but the philosophy of the number three and the trinity of unity starts in ancient Sumeria then spreads to ancient Greece, Egypt(Hermes Trismegistus) and India(Vedic, Sanskrit text).
It's actually kind of funny that almost nobody could figure out why Tesla and countless other scientists and inventors were obsessed with the number three. They were all studying the science and technology of these ancient cultures. Throughout the history of mankind these themes keep popping up... the number 3, Unity, the Trinity of Unity.
Now we know the rest of the story and it's really fascinating stuff...
Regards
AC
Yes, very interesting...and I know...however, "0"...that is the center of it all...and in order just to vary the other two parameters in between we have hundred of years that has been done wrong...and still we do not learn at least how to find the equilibrium...or "unity"...
There is still a lot to learn AC,...to even reach said equilibrium.
...to even talk about reaching overunity...unfortunately
Regards
Ufopolitics
-
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea? (https://overunity.com/19139/local-hidden-variables-for-the-win-not-101st-bad-idea/msg567890/#msg567890) « Reply #6 on: Today at 03:26:14 AM »
Conclusion:
Overunity is a nonsense
- masturbating one's brain by changing priority and flip
Free Energy exists and there is nothing special about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ldus3AQSpE&t=771s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ldus3AQSpE&t=771s)
Wesley
-
stivep
Conclusion:
Overunity is a nonsense
- masturbating one's brain by changing priority and flip
Free Energy exists and there is nothing special about it.
I used to think overunity was nonsense but I changed my mind. In fact one sign of intelligence is being able to learn new things and adapt to survive or make progress. Not being able to change our mind and trying to hold to popular beliefs is not the way forward in my opinion.
Unity is COP=1, the input or cause is always equal and opposite to the output or effect. COP1 is the natural order of things for obvious reasons otherwise any natural system could grow or gain energy exponentially and chaos would ensue. Ergo, the concept in question must be un-natural or seldom found in nature or hidden from us... it must be a special case.
Which may be the reason only a very small number of people on this planet have been able to understand the FE process well enough to design and build something that actually works.
Regards
AC
-
Great topic
First i must point out about the cosmos:
Cosmological systems are not in a state of perpetual motion.
They are more akin to a radioactive isotope, in that they are
in a state of orbital decay. (either positive or negative but never stable)
Whereas a stable isotope CAN be considered to be an a perpetual state of
motile equilibrium.
That is to say that the forces and counter forces perfectly balance each other,
such that the system remains in constant motion.
Why the distinction? Because in the 2 prior cases, we can calculate when the system will stop.
The space between the nucleus of a stable isotope and its’ electrons can effectively be considered “void”. And for all intensive purposes, perpetual.
However, in space and between the nucleus and electrons of a decaying atom:
there is matter and energy in a state of flux. Which causes friction and other forces at play.
and in almost every observable case, the system itself in changing over time.
Eventually even our earth would fall into the sun, were the Sun not destined to destroy itself before this time.
There are 2 major problems with perpetual motion:
First and foremost - it is the job of science to define the source of energy, and once known,
the system is classified as a known system. Thus redefined as NOT perpetual.
After all, the stable atom itself might be tapping into an unknown zero-point energy, to maintain its’ existence. Explorations are still needed in this field.
The second problem is this:
Once we have this perpetual system, adding or taking energy can disrupt its’ balance of forces.
It the simplest form, lowering the energy state of a Hydrogen atom in its’ (S1) ground state causes the electron orbit to collapse. The electron undergoes infinite acceleration and is ejected leaving the hydrogen as a (low-energy) positive ion. Electron capture from a nearby source restores the atom to its’ stable state by raising the energy level.
Conversely: raising the energy of the same atom enough to eject the electron by force creates a
(high energy) positive ion, this energy releases via lasing and radiation emission during electron capture from a nearby source.
How does this occur?
1) in the low-energy case: the electron is accelerating slowly, encountering a resistive force.
this exchange adds energy to the nucleus until it reaches the point of stability. (S1)
2) in the high-energy case: the electron is accelerating very quickly, the force it encounters aids acceleration, this exchange takes energy from the nucleus until it reaches the last point of stability.
(in all but Quantum rarity of a double capture, this is the 7s orbit. double capture results in a quasi-stable 8s heavy hydrogen w 2 electrons, and almost identical mass to Deuterium), then a subsequent lasing event as it transitions back down to the ground state.
Why is this knowledge important to our topic?
I will try to explain.
If we are to model our system after the known perpetual system of a stable nucleus, we must understand these mechanisms.
For instance, if we are to use our perpetual system to generate electricity or actuate a mechanism.
The system requires a mechanism to restore the state of perpetuity after the exchange event.
If the exchange adds energy to our perpetual system, the internal mechanism must dissipate it until the point of motile equilibrium.
Conversely, if the exchange subtracts energy from our perpetual system, the internal mechanism must draw energy in until the point of motile equilibrium.
(drinking bird?)
If we can call the drinking bird a ‘solar powered’ device, or a balance between heat from the sun and the water molecule’s affinity for heat…
then we can call the atom an ‘electron powered device’.
Then we define an electron as a discrete energy source.
The mechanism is still the same.
I hereby define this type of system as a perpetual motion device of the First Kind.
A system in a state of motile equilibrium with a mechanism to bring a single source of energy in and out to self-restore motile equilibrium.
A perpetual motion device of the Second Kind is hereby defined as a device in a state of motile equilibrium, having mechanisms to bring multiple sources of energy in and out to restore motile equilibrium.
-
Perpetual Motion is NOT, however, the same as “Overunity”.
Overunity implies that the system is NOT in a state of motile equilibrium,
but rather constantly providing energy to outside systems.
In one perspective, this could be defined as a system in an (countably infinite) higher energy state than its’ surroundings.
From our perspective, geothermal energy qualifies as such a system.
As does a system drawing from magnetic interactions alone.
Or the sun itself. (although we technically can count its’ fuel)
Other types of systems that meet this qualification may include:
Gravity/Buoyancy systems
Molecular Phase-Change systems
Spacetime pressure inversion systems (>2Mev(-)/cm^3)
super conductivity/super inductivity/super restivity/super reluctivity
electrostatic/electric charge propulsion
certain hydraulic/hydrodynamic configurations
Dynamic-momentum systems
certain electrochemical systems
life
-
I am not yet qualified to comment on (non-super) electrical conduction / induction devices.
While there are countless claims to overunity, the math is generally unfavorable by material choice.
That is not to say that creating emf disturbances cannot lead to a (net) energy from our perspective.
Just that i do not have successful experience enough to speak on these issues outside the theoretical.
I do feel it should be at least accounted for in this discussion, given the number of electromagnetic devices in progress.
-
stivep
Unity is COP=1, the input or cause is always equal and opposite to the output or effect. COP1 is the natural order of things for obvious reasons otherwise any natural system could grow or gain energy exponentially and chaos would ensue.
Regards
AC
That sounds a lot like the commonly accepted theories of universal expansion.
I, myself cannot accept these theories as they stand, afterall expansion posits that we are at the center of expansion, while big-bang from which it is inherited posits this location very far away.
Making it contradictory to itself.
That with the number of observable galaxies moving towards us, its pretty much garbage to assume the universe is infinitely ‘growing’
Rather that it expands and contracts in specific regions plottable in a mathematical formula.
Giving it the shape of a quadrapole electromagnet. Folds in on itself in 4 places.
But thats neither here nor there, pardon the pun.
The point is, (atoms and molecules withstanding) if the natural order of things were COP=1,
i dont think any of us would be here.
I believe that natural order of things ranges from:
COP=0 A completely destructive system
to COP = infinity. A completely constructive system
-
Smoky2
Perpetual Motion is NOT, however, the same as “Overunity”.
Overunity implies that the system is NOT in a state of motile equilibrium,
but rather constantly providing energy to outside systems.
Many think that the laws of science are rigid but in fact there are many grey areas and misunderstandings.
For example, the COE demands that any cause should produce an equal and opposite effect and this is true. Otherwise were left with the notion that something can be created from nothing which is illogical. It took a long time to figure out this quagmire but in the end I found OU is valid and the laws of science and the COE are as well.
You see the problem is not science but the kind of logic and reason most use to justify a position. Many use the appeal to purity or authority fallacy supposing that many know better than them and there logic is infallible. Many also rely on the bandwagon fallacy supposing that just because more people believe something longer it is more justified. However we have irrefutable proof none of this is true because our knowledge and beliefs are always changing and were always making progress. Ergo, nothing is static and everything changes eventually.
As it were I found the impossible problem of overunity fairly straightforward. Logically, if unity means cause and effect must always be equal and opposite then overunity means there must be a secondary mechanism present which prevents unity from occurring. So your line of reason is much better than most and not far off the mark.
In fact, many FE inventors claimed the system they devised was based on the premise that it was perpetually seeking an equilibrium it was never allowed to find. Ergo, a secondary force or effect was present which prevented unity/equilibrium from occurring. In which case these inventors quite literally told us exactly what they were trying to do... prevent equilibrium.
This is the procedure...
1)We should educate ourselves and seek an intimate understanding of exactly what happens in our devices and why.
2)We should seek ways and means to prevent what we don't want to happen and action to promote what we do.
3)Keep trying until something works.
Regards
AC
-
I will add to that Onepower in that we need to constantly look at nature and learn how it does things as that moves us to understand a lot of said "Grey Areas we have in science." When it comes to nature generally speaking it does things in the most efficient ways possible as the survival of the fittest demands it!
I remember well when regoing over photosynthesis many told me I was just wasting my time as it's all said and done. But I didn't listen to them as I had questions that needed answers that main stream science wasn't able to answer. Simple questions like, "How does a plant break the bonds of the water molecules?" When going over photosynthesis very carefully I found the answer to my question. That answer lead to a whole new theory of how nature goes about breaking the bonds of molecules as water isn't the only molecule that is broken down by taking the electrons away from the atoms that make up the molecules.
I find that right now at this very moment folks don't see this new theory as important and treat it as a waste of words as they simply haven't tried to apply the theory to unknowns experimentally as of yet. I find that folks that just cling to the laws of thermal dynamics as the holy grail that can not be broken simply are not open minded to the fact we don't know everything there is to know about the world around us and beyond. These people act as we know all there is to know and thus really will have no more scientific discovery in our world with the way they act towards any new claim. They fail to realize that those laws of thermal dynamics fail to answer how it is we are alive.
Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
https://gofund.me/09b949fa (https://gofund.me/09b949fa)
-
It turns out, we heat two completely identical bimetallic plates,
one is free, the second moves some kind of load, in short it does work.
The amount of heat will be different spent to heat up to one
temperature?
If two identical springs are lowered into a salt solution and a multimeter is connected, then there will be no current. But if one spring is compressed (or stretched) - a current will flow through the external circuit.
Is that really true ??
-
Hi Edward,
I was thinking that they know exactly how the bond of water is broken by plant life, namely through the photoelectric effect by EM radiation (sun rays), 4(?) electrons are knocked off per 2H2O.
Is there a missing piece to this knowledge?
Ok maybe I see where you're going, nothing else than EM energy is breaking the bonds by only removing 4 covalent electrons, it even creates an electric current by releasing electrons (which is inhibited by the amp consuming device to prevent making the water conductive?).
aka "the electric polarization process." how Meyer named it ?
regards
-
Hi Edward,
I was thinking that they know exactly how the bond of water is broken by plant life, namely through the photoelectric effect by EM radiation (sun rays), 4(?) electrons are knocked off per 2H2O.
Is there a missing piece to this knowledge?
Ok maybe I see where you're going, nothing else than EM energy is breaking the bonds by only removing 4 covalent electrons, it even creates an electric current by releasing electrons (which is inhibited by the amp consuming device to prevent making the water conductive?).
aka "the electric polarization process." how Meyer named it ?
regards
Hi Alan,
No, they missed this for if they had figured this out no one would have questions what Meyer and others like him had done. Not even Meyer himself knew about this connection for if he did his water injectors would have been designed differently. Again the question was, "How does a plant break the bonds of the water molecules?" Now in the photo you can see just how a plant does this but note they didn't understand that the very act of taking away the electron from the atoms that make up the water molecules is what broke the bonds of those molecules as knowing that leads to another question with a whole new line of test to be performed. This question that arises from knowing this is, "How many different ways do we know of in getting the electrons away from their atoms?" With this question more testing or observations of things must be done. One thing we need to be looking for with water is the generation of hydrogen and oxygen gases, and the creation of an electrical charge.
I found out that all the ways that we know of in how to get the electrons away from their atoms will work at breaking the bonds of the water molecules when I ran a lot of my searches now having something to look for. My first search was from something I read a long time ago about the devices they use to smash or collide atoms. They used water as their dielectric and the intense magnetic fields would cause the water molecules to break down. Over time the electric charge created would gain enough energy to over come the gases resistance to current flow and create a spark where the gases had pooled up in machine and cause an explosion which put water all over their expensive equipment. For them this was a problem and they solved it by carefully redesigning their machines so the magnetic field stayed below that threshold to get break down the water molecules. Again what I was looking for was three things, the evolution of gases and the creation of an electric charge.
Then I turned my attention to the Nuclear reactors of Fukushima and my explanation fits far better than theirs on why those reactors blew up. You see there was no power going to the buildings as the title wave took everything out. Their explanation says the it was the heat that broke the bonds of the water molecules and those gases then got trapped and a pressure of 7.7 bar cause the explosions. But those buildings weren't sealed up like that in that they would be able to contain the gases effectively as the buildings did have air conditioning. My explanation of what caused those buildings to blow up is by way of bombardment the radiation was intense enough to knock off the atoms electrons, which broke down the water molecules and created a charge as the electrons remained in the water bath. Those gases collected in the celling of the building but not at the pressures they are stating. Once the charge had enough energy to overcome the air's resistance to current flow it created a spark in the presence of hydrogen and oxygen and the rest is history.
I then looked at TWA flight 800 the plane that blew up shortly after takeoff on the east coast of America. I found that it flew into an active thunderstorm which the thunder we can hear and feel on the ground is caused by a hydrogen/oxygen explosion taking place in the clouds. The water is broken down by the storm system at the bottom of the clouds and then floats up to the top of the cloud were it is ignited by the tiny sparks there. My explanation is the plane intercepted a large pocket of hydrogen gases and it's engines ignited the mixture blowing the plane to Kingdome come. In my search I found several planes that went down this way so, that's not an isolated incident. I had already figured out that lightening and thunder were two different things so it was just a question of finding planes that flew into active thunderstorm and blowing up or getting severely damaged from doing so.
In my own experiments I had observed the gases coming out of the resonant cavities were mostly large bubbles and didn't look like typical electrolysis at all with those fine bubbles. Then it dawned on me that monoatomic hydrogen occupies more space that diatomic hydrogen does which would explain the larger bubble sizes I was observing. Plus listening to Dr. Czysz talk about what he observed that water appeared to be boiling clued me in on this as boiling water looks very different than electrolysis does and I am pretty sure he knew what boiling water looks like. He talks about this in this video: [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkjpVcsRQLc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkjpVcsRQLc)[/size][size=78%] [/size]
Dr. Czysz eye witness account of this technology in operation really help me to solve this technology. That and my asking many different questions and then answering those questions. As when a plant breaks the bonds of the water molecules like this an electric charge is created as that's how this type of water separations works. As you can see in the drawing a plant has an electron acceptor molecule and the light from the sun simply pushes the electrons into higher orbits about the atoms and when those electrons get out too far that molecules catches them and the water molecules they formed are no more. The scientist were only looking for how a plant generated electricity and if they figure out how it did that they could then supply electricity to the power grid and get paid. They completely missed that the plant broke the bonds of the water molecules by simply taking away the electrons from the atoms that made up the water molecules. If they had known this they wouldn't have stated that Meyer's technology was breaking the laws of thermal dynamics as the technology is breaking the bonds of the water molecules just like a thunderstorm does but then most people don't know that about thunderstorms either as they think lighting breaks the bonds of the water molecules. Lighting is a result of a run away reaction taking place by the decomposition of the water molecules as the electron remains in the water. It is the voltage potential that breaks the bonds of the water molecules in thunderstorms as it's been observed that at the bottom of the cloud the air under a thunderstorm is very humid and ionized hydrogen atoms split apart from water vapor contribute red to the glow so that ionized humid air glows violet.
Hydrogen isn't typically found in nature all by itself as it's normally attached to other atoms but it's found ionized in thunderstorms by the light it creates as it goes from a higher energy state to a lower one which gives off a red glow as the atoms move to stabilize themselves with other hydrogen atoms to form stable diatomic hydrogen molecules. From all of this I was able to figure out a brand new theory for the books of science as a plant also breaks the bonds of carbon dioxide by taking away the electrons from the atoms that make up the carbon dioxide molecules. It has no use for the oxygen and lets it go but it keeps the carbon so that it can create the things it needs to grow, live, and thrive with the hydrogen atoms it got from the water molecules. Now hopefully you can see why I just don't give this technology away as this took a lot of work, experimenting, and observing the results to figure out. For me I was taught good observations is good science and I am naturally a very observant person. Meyer would always say, "One has to ask the right questions," and I proved that I was the man for the job in asking and answered those very different questions. It took me many years of study to learn all of this and once done I did as promised and shared the science behind this technology but just the science as someone has to implement this technology by way of mass production and that information I don't share as our system of governance 'capitalism' doesn't allow that.
This is not an easy technology to get working correctly as even Meyer was stuck on trying to get the injectors to work at the time when he passed away. He never got the chance to figure out why the injectors didn't work but I did only because I was allowed to live longer. Now when I looked at how a plant broke the bonds of the water molecules I did so in a step by step fashion looking over photosynthesis very carefully to see if they missed anything and I found what they glossed over in their quest to figure out how a plant created electricity so that they could eventually build solar cells to put power on the nation's energy grid system and get paid.
With Meyer's technology it's the waveform that prevents amp flow through the water bath not the resistance in the wires. Due to the function of the blocking diode the capacitor is polarized where one side will always be positive and the other will always be negative and when that happens the total energy must be summed. When you take the sum all that is left over will pass through the water bath but it really isn't up to the task of performing electrolysis as it's not enough energy to do so. This is why the water never heats, (as stated by Dr. Czysz's eye witness accounts of this technology), up as the waveform cancels out the current when properly balanced to have equal positive and negative voltages. This technology is very complicated and as such we can't expect people to recreated it even given a full set of plans as it simply cost too much to make "One Offs." It must go into mass production to bring the cost down as again that's just how capitalism works. Plus one has to have the skill and tools necessary to implement this technology. It took me many years to get the equipment I needed to build and test this technology correctly and I am finding myself still needing to buy more. People just wanting to jump into this technology will be totally shocked at the entry level cost to get things up and running. Plus I had to go to college to learn a lot and be trained as a mechanic to know how to deal with engines. All of this takes time as it took many years to learn what I know now as I didn't just wake up one day and all of this knowledge was in my head ready to be used.
I've been working on this technology since March of 2006 and some things I have learned new about this technology I only did so in the past few months. So, for me more than 16 years have passed and now I am finally ready to put this technology on the marketplace right when this world appears to need this technology the most to deal with rising fuel prices that are pushing many out of their homes. That time doesn't include me going to college or learning how to be an effective mechanic that was good at troubleshooting problems. This is why I feel am the right person for the task at hand as I put in my time on figuring out this technology and have the drive to see this through.
Shalom Everyone,
Edward Mitchell
https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me (https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me)
-
Photosynthesis (like many complex areas of science) is convoluted by the education system.
The knowledge we seek is separated across 3 distinct fields and their knowledge is not shared.
This was planned this way intentionally by the accreditation board to stagnate technological progress.
The first field is of course biology. More specifically biology of plantlife.
Here we learn how water is drawn up by the plant, and how sunlight is used to produce energy and growth.
The second field is electrochemistry.
Here we learn how photons enter the magnesium crystal inside the chloroplasts, and catalyze the reaction.
The 3rd field is organic chemistry. Here we learn how the water molecule is broken down and reformed into new compounds and molecules.
Together, all of the knowledge is attainable, however, educationally no one person is exposed to all 3 fields with sufficient advancement to gain a full comprehension.
It is not that we don’t know. It is that we segregate the knowledge to prevent the knowing.
-
Photosynthesis (like many complex areas of science) is convoluted by the education system.
The knowledge we seek is separated across 3 distinct fields and their knowledge is not shared.
This was planned this way intentionally by the accreditation board to stagnate technological progress.
The first field is of course biology. More specifically biology of plantlife.
Here we learn how water is drawn up by the plant, and how sunlight is used to produce energy and growth.
The second field is electrochemistry.
Here we learn how photons enter the magnesium crystal inside the chloroplasts, and catalyze the reaction.
The 3rd field is organic chemistry. Here we learn how the water molecule is broken down and reformed into new compounds and molecules.
Together, all of the knowledge is attainable, however, educationally no one person is exposed to all 3 fields with sufficient advancement to gain a full comprehension.
It is not that we don’t know. It is that we segregate the knowledge to prevent the knowing.
I think you are correct sm0ky2 as due to my field of study being the Army wanted me to do one thing and I wanted to do another I was exposed to two out of the three you mentioned. Once I started asking and answering my own questions as I made use of the scientific method I was able to see just what a plant actually did to break the bonds of the molecules it broke down. That lead me to learning about the earth's global electric circuit as it was there that I figured out that lightening and thunder were not created by the same forces. Plus I was able to make a direct comparison between the earth's global electric circuit to Meyer's voltage intensifier circuit and saw that they matched up perfectly. That blocking diode ensures the current goes in the same direction as the earth's global electric circuit.
When I first posted this in my thread many people outright laughed in my face as they ridiculed the whole idea, but since I learned this by making use of the scientific method I just ignored them. That VIC is fairly simple so it surprises me that no one ran a current flow analysis of the circuit as that switch is either on or it's off. When the switch is ON the capacitor is allowed to discharge and when the switch is OFF the chokes are allowed to charge the capacitor(s). This part to me was very simple but it's not easy to build a high voltage transformer like this and have it last for hours on end. Some of my transformers shorted out within a minute of me turning on the switch. I think what got too me and made me mad was those that came to my thread posting an opposing view having done no form of actual experimenting on the technology and then seeing that people would choose to listen to them instead of the one that was actually performing real world experiments.
But I wonder is what you spoke of done deliberately or by those just seeking to claim their piece of the dollar pie? Money tends to makes folks act strangely as they seek to maximize profit. I really don't like capitalism but I am stuck in this system by default. To me this system will kill the planet's ability to support life as we know it as profit is put above all else.
Thanks for the insight,
Edward Mitchell
https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me (https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me)
-
I don’t believe it could be anything other than intentional division of the knowledge.
True, it is done under the guise of preparing students for particular jobs or skill-sets,
and several decisions involve corporate influence. But it is done far too meticulously
and encompasses too many areas of study to be a mere side effect of industry.
I recommend that every student assimilate as many degree-curriculums as possible,
even if done on their own. One pass through the system will not fully educate a person
in all areas of science and knowledge. And all are necessary for the big picture.
With a Masters or even a Doctorate, you have only been exposed to but the small fraction that
pertains to your field of study.
For any one subject, there are many others that hold the clues and keys to unlocking the knowledge.
If you study electromagnetism, electronics, signal processing, etc.
You should also study music, magnetics, mechanics, and communication theory.
For example
The problem many have with their own education, is they feel the knowledge they were given is the end-all say-all for all things that are to be known. The individual does not even possess all that we do know, much less any knowledge of that which we do not know.
That won’t stop them from arguing to death about what they believe to be impossible.
The more expensive their degree, the stronger this reinforcement of the value of their knowledge becomes. Sometimes to the point of fear when new information threatens to prove it wrong.
[size=78%] Even the savants like Maxwell and Tesla never stopped learning until the day they died.[/size]
The average man can’t even comprehend the full extent of their discoveries,
and none could come close in 4-7 short years of schooling.
The real question is not wether Overunity is possible,
But why you do not believe it to be.
The authority of your professor?
Trust in the accreditation system?
The contents of a book written 300 yrs ago?
Or do you truly believe you understand the entire universe?
Quantum Theory, is itself, a study of overunity in discrete systems.
And we as humans have barely begun to scratch the surface of this science.
—————————————————————————
( quote from an unruly student: “Umm professor Johnson, my circuit appears to be Overunity and keeps burning itself up”
Professor: “That’s illegal, here use this ferrite bead”)
-
the problem is that this discussion can't go on forever .
The substance has a decay time and after 10 (to the 120th degree) years,
all the substance will disappear.
The last Black Holes will disappear in 10 (to the 160th degree) years by their radiation.
as they say "nothing lasts forever under the moon"
though with the moon problems will occur much earlier ...... :)
-
the problem is that this discussion can't go on forever .
The substance has a decay time and after 10 (to the 120th degree) years,
all the substance will disappear.
The last Black Holes will disappear in 10 (to the 160th degree) years by their radiation.
as they say "nothing lasts forever under the moon"
though with the moon problems will occur much earlier ...... :)
But then of course, the last black hole had created a large star that went supernovae
Forming a new black hole…..
Or multiple new black holes may have occured as a result of the first having lived.
Which will form stars of its’ own, etc, etc.