Absolutely agree.
However patent office wants  to know how you did it.
Kapanadze didn't know why it works but how to build it /
His application was rejected.

So if for example this  transformer (toroidal transformer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPXtiJaSiKA
was popular enough in 50ties  instead of this one:
https://edisontechcenter.org/Transformers.html
 it  would be cheaper now than  regular  one, using transformer silicon steel sheets
the same was with   first  microwave  it was 50k and now is $120.
But for that  Patent had to be approved. some time ago only 
because they could explain  why it works.
So any "magic" device  presenting  whatever (possible  or impossible)  needs inventor  ability  to explain it.

 However in USA if you come to PO and put on the table working device ,  they must examine it.
and can not deny patent if it works despite  your  ability to explain  how it works.
 minimum paper  work is required.
Wesley

Seriously ? What about Joseph Newman ? Rejected patent as his device being a perpetual motion machine.

I can tell you what would work: build it, teach others how to replicate, use it make everything open source and leave all academia to catch their heads while most of people can benefit in spite of gov/military/ whatsoever.

I really don’t care what any patent office might say about an device that I can build to use any kind of energy that can’t be taxed or measured as long as it work it will be enough to get only 1 in the open source and all this crap will vanish together with all thin credibility exhibited by outrageous unscrupulous individuals and organisations all around the world. And it will happen soon.

Although USPTO rejected Newman’s patent application but they allowed this patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US11588421B1/en for describing some other inventors work.

Patent office lately have become an extension arm of some robbery society.

And I can see you Wesley being first to jump on defence for suppression of free energy with al kind of fake analyses and conclusions that twist the truth.

rakarskiy
It's debatable, if we have a box made of particles and fields full of particles and fields can it exclude particles and fields when all are already present and constitute energy?.

Do you see the dilemma?. Feynman/wheeler claimed even a cup sized volume of space in a perfect vacuum still contains enough energy to boil the Earth's oceans. Most other physicists claimed every space contains virtual particles popping in and out of existence which also constitutes an unimaginable amount of energy. Others claimed billions of neutrino's and other exotic particles are perpetually moving through every space thus all matter as well.

Which begs the question, when all the greatest minds in physics who often won a Nobel prize for there work claim there is really no such thing as a closed system should we believe them?.

AC

Philosophy and reality are very different things. We cannot use a very small period of time in the Universe (1000 years on earth) as a dimension for an experiment. In general we do not operate with the concept of multidimensional medium of space, we cannot control time and in general we are insignificant before what we study.

Our galaxy is expanding, it would not be possible, if the Law of Conservation of Energy is fulfilled!

For example, our Sun is a star and it will continue to radiate/expand energy until it turns into a red giant and explodes scattering all it's material out into the universe.

Which begs the question, if energy always radiates how did the star form in the first place?. Energy radiates but it also gravitates and the force of gravity brought all the stars material/fuel together initially. Thus a star is an energy converter, gravity brought the materials together starting the fusion reaction which is now radiating the energy it was given. This radiated energy is absorbed by other bodies which will eventually gravitate forming new stars and the cycle continues.

Do you see the pattern?, energy is always changing in form however the forms are cyclical. That which radiates at some point is absorbed and must then gravitate and repeat the radiation/gravitation energy cycle. This is why the conservation of energy must always hold. Thus the Conservation of energy can be defined by one question, if energy is radiated somewhere where does it go?. It just keeps going until it is absorbed by something else, ergo the Conservation of Energy.

Which of course always comes full circle back to the same old question... what is energy?.

AC

According to Dollard, there is no inside structure to the Sun, no fusion, it is not burning anything ("it doesn't have too, it's a converter"), only in the flares you get fusion, in the arcs. He believes that the Sun is a transformer that gets its energy from another dimension (or counter-space). You can look into the black holes on the Suns surface, that is all there is inside, darkness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3o-piMW-Fg

Darkness has a strong absorption pressure/force

Brightness has a strong reflection pressure/force

Planck and Stefan-Boltzmann physics !
The darkest black (industrial)  and the brightiest light :

https://www.the-black-market.com/musoublack-vs-black3.0-vs-vbx2/
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nature.com/articles/346802a0.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiP7bCSuZ-AAxV4TKQEHdwXCJ0QFnoECAUQAg&usg=AOvVaw2cuVv4JttLxLlMzBpeiNNK

https://www.google.com/search?q=black+silicon&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m

Which maximal possible glasfiber to cell/modul/panel output per sqmm/sqcm/sqm  ?
Without to overload the receiver/converter !?

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=DD&NR=272727A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=19891018&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
Radiator/Emissor  with 10v12 W/cm² lightfocus(point) , 10v3 = KW,10v6= MW,10v9=GW,10v12=TW
1sqm/m² = 10 000 cm²

By above Winstons concentrated Watt-peak : 72 W/mm² = 72 MW/m² and

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19941018&CC=US&NR=5356484A&KC=A#

The design of the quantum well diodes for the reversible thermoelectric converter is a function of the application, and the effective temperature and intensity of the source of hot electrons. Several applications of the reversible thermoelectric converter are discussed below. In an example of a thin film metallic quantum well diode suitable for the conversion of solar energy concentrated up to 10@7 watts per square meter, layer 42 (FIGS. 2 and 3) is an evaporated aluminum film having a thickness of 140 angstroms, barrier layer 44 is evaporated aluminum oxide having a thickness of 12 angstroms and layer 40 is an evaporated copper film having a thickness of 100 angstroms. For this energy conversion application, metal electrodes are specified since amounts of power as large as concentrated solar energy can be delivered by the quantum reversible thermoelectric converter. The high power output capability results from the large electron carrier density of metals, which can be orders of magnitude larger than the most heavily doped semiconductors.



we will get dimple-simple  RE/FE converter

by perpetuum solar motion = continuum

and worldwide light (global conducting fibre network) or converted light to electricity distribution,24/365 .

wmbr
OCWL

Your are aware how stupis thiis shit sounds - right!

Maybe not! (Have a look at the Parker Probe)

 
 

We don't know much, we don't use the concept of adjacent dimensions, but the "universe" is multidimensional

So to recap...

- Continuous or perpetual motion literally demanded by the Conservation of Energy is far fetched. It doesn't matter if nobody can give even one example of something not in perpetual motion, it's just silly.
- However many supposedly magical multiverses or multi dimensions leading to who knows where is perfectly fine and just common sense.

You know I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box but I know a contradiction when I see one. It's as if many are claiming we need to be realistic, stick to the facts, then lose there mind and jump down the nearest rabbit hole in spite of themselves.

AC