Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: CarmenMagnetic on April 07, 2007, 05:38:43 PM
-
Bill Muller?s overunity motor-generator.
Magnetic phenomenon seems enigmatic. The magnet seems to be in a passive and inert state
and yet the moment you bring an iron piece in its vicinity, the magnet seems to become ?live? and
?grabs? it. How and why does this happen? Bill Muller found out the reason by experimenting with
magnets, which led to the over unity motor he invented. His findings are particularly significant
because even today Physicists have not been able to derive a justifiable principle to
accommodate the concept of overunity behavior.
An alternate theory, mentioned below, provides very sound theoretical reasons, not only for the
behavior of magnets but also the fact that it can release energy, power or motive potential that
seems to be free or unaccountable.
Let us look at a simple wave phenomenon, like the waves on the surface of the sea. Wind
blowing on the surface pushes a section of water over the normal level of the sea surface.
The layer of water climbs over and builds up a height for a brief period and then levels out. As the
wind speeds up, the wave height increases but a section at the crest rolls over with apparently
more force even before the wave levels out. At very high speed wind speeds these rollers release
enough force on collapsing, to damage things in its path like boats etc. In other words, a wave
that only moves back and forth in a gentle breeze becomes a singular bundle of waves that rolls
forward a good distance beyond its previous periodic movement, when the wind speed exceeds a
certain limit.
Yet we have seen that high-speed winds do not inflict as much damage as the rollers in the sea.
Theoretically the work done by rollers must be equal to that done by wind but the physical
evidence seems to indicate that the rollers seem to have done much more. Such an observation,
where force in rollers seems to have been amplified over that induced by the wind-source, leads
one to conclude that energy conservation principle has been violated. But that is not so when we
include the time element. The wind took a considerable time to build up a group of waves into a
singular form as a roller which on collapsing released all the energy in a fraction of the build up
time.
It is like placing objects one by one into a container over a certain period and then emptying it all
in a fraction of that time. On comparing the force released by dropping one object against that
done instantly by the group, we would observe an amplification of force. But that multiplication
factor has been contributed by the number of times an act has been done repeatedly before it is
released in the period of a single act. Another example would highlight the problem in Physics. If
10 people clap one after another in a certain period, the observer would count ten claps in that
interval. If all the ten people clap exactly at the same time, or simultaneously, in the same period,
the observer would count just one clap within that interval. The observer would not be aware that
9 claps have vanished and though the simultaneous claps would sound louder, he would not
have been able to count more than one clap. It is impossible to differentiate a number of events
that have taken place in the same place and period as a single event. Electromagnetic energy is
detected only by counting the number of its oscillations per period or frequency but without
knowing how many of those oscillations are acting exactly in step as simultaneous counts. The
hidden counts turn up as mass or density in our calculations, if we consider each oscillation or
clap as the equivalent of a charge.
Electromagnetic phenomenon behaves exactly as explained above. But the problem in applying
that analogy has been created by Physicists themselves, for they insist that all that work is done
without the water and air in our example. Why? Because science is unable to experimentally
detect the medium in which all these forces are created. Hence, if there is no medium there is no
reasonable way to estimate the time it has operated to produce that amplified force. It is obvious
that if one cannot infer the time in which a source has acted the resulting amplification would
seem to come from nowhere or it will be viewed as an overunity behavior. We know from our
analogy that if we include the work done at source there is no violation of conservation principles
and free energy as such does not exist. From the foregoing it is very clear that unless scientists
revise their concept of an empty space they cannot derive a principle to justify such phenomenon.
It is all the more surprising for ?overunity? behavior has been demonstrated numerous times by
inventors all over the world.
Lets apply the analogy to understand how Bill Muller?s motor works. The periodic interaction of
wind on water created the waves which did some work in a fraction of that time. Describing it
differently, molecules at lower density, as air, interacted with the same type of molecules at a
higher density as water. Mathematically the ratio of difference in density could be proportionally
equated to the ratio of duration of action and thereby satisfy the conservation principle as work
put in equals work put out. If the density difference of the two different molecular states were not
known, that equation could never be completed.
What Bill Muller found out through experiments was that the field intensity of a magnet indicated
that density difference even though experimentally it was not possible to find it out. He found
another aspect, as shown earlier in the analogy; the greater the density difference the smaller
was the time in which the work had to be extracted. Magnets are just the coherent container in
which the wave-rollers as charges have been stored during its formation. Hence he chose superpermanent
magnets as the type of energy flywheel that stored the maximum density in terms of
extractable work. By interrupting the interaction of the magnetic field suddenly, all the stored
energy was dumped instantly into the medium, like the rollers, and all that one had to do was to
collect it in suitable containers, like coils. By demonstrating that principle through his magnetic
motor he short-circuited the need to find a theoretical principle. Hence there was no violation of
any conservation law but only the introduction of an experimental fact that was needed urgently to
correct our theoretical principles in Physics.
In Physics an electric charge or a photon has no mass, hence no density. Yet a magnetic field
comprising 10 E + 18 unit charges in motion at maximum velocity provides a potential to move
objects that have mass or density. Nowhere in Physics is there a connection to show how the
huge number of mass-less charges interact to move charge-less masses, with tremendous
acceleration as seen in practice. Moreover, no one has really cared to see this gross deficiency in
logic nor has an effort been made to understand what an electric charge really is, except to play
around with charge creating devices and derive desultory equations from experimental
measurements. The real fact is that the electromagnetic theory in Physics has no physical
foundation, for the latter day Physicists have decided to define space as a void, without any
qualities. As things stand Physics is a long way from accepting the fact that energy conservation
equations will show the existence of overunity characteristics if the photon or unit charge is
redefined as possessing mass or density in the form of stored activity time. It will then see every
magnet as a charge-energy flywheel that has stored a huge number of ?charges with mass in
motion?. Hence Bill Muller?s famous statement that every magnet is a motor is absolutely correct.
The Sankhya theory has laid bare the principles of Physics by deriving all constants through
axiomatic principles using combinatorial mathematics. It?s greatest advantage is that no
experimental or measured inputs are necessary to complete its theoretical logic. On the contrary
it provides theoretical answers to every experiment we intend to carry out. It derives the rules of
interactions in high density domains through a new principle of Simultaneity following self similar
principles. The photon and its associated magnetic field density in terms of mass are derived
accurately from definitions that endow space with real, detectable qualities. In this write up on Bill
Muller?s excellent invention, I have refrained from including mathematical solutions as I was not
sure of how an average reader would welcome it.
The Sankhyan unified field theoretical principles and its esoteric mathematical logic is on my
website http://www.geocities.com/om3namaskar/index.html. I can correspond with those
interested in its mathematics and explain difficult aspects of the unique theory. My email id is
gsvasktg@gmail.com.
carmen@mullerpower.com
-
I would like to comment the "wave theory" you got,, but now with an other way to explain damage.
Think of a bullet. Place this bullet on your forehead. During the time the bullet have been laying on that surface, it has sunk a little bit into the soft surface. Let's say the bullet have been laying there for one year. All you have left is a small bump in yor forehead.
Then you place this bullet in a gun, and fire it into the same surface. Let's say the bullets kinetic energy is in total the same during the period of one year with its weight affects the soft surface, and during the one mS at very high speed when it impacts the same surface. The bullet will definitely do more damage from the gun, than from the period it was laying on that surface even if the total kinetic energy is exactly the same. The difference is in fact live or die.
The same happens with the waves on the sea. When it do damage, it is done during a shorter period of time, but with greater force. So you cannot extract more energy than the wind is putting in. However, I believe the concentrated energy released in a short time might be useful to achieve less loss, than the same energy released over a longer period of time. Maybe I'm wrong.
Br.
Vidar