anything that works?

[admin]

We have received a few reports regarding this thread. Please keep things on topic and stop name calling and any other offensive posting immediately. If this does not cease, we will begin deleting posts and/or close the thread.

Thank you for keeping this a place to share and learn.

[Peter Lindemann]

Masters of Deception

Greetings Folks,

Is there "Anything That Works?" Of course there is. Quite a few working systems are being talked about in these threads. So, what is the problem? Why do so many "well meaning" and "interested" people not "see" the solutions being offered?

The real answer is quite disturbing, but here it is. Our PERCEPTION is TRAINED to be FAULTY!

Here is a perfect example.



Believe it or not, the two squares are the exact same shade of grey. So, why does the one on the top look darker? The reason is that our brains are trained to interpret the shading and the edge effects so that we "believe" that the upper square is a brightly lit dark object while the lower one is a light colored object in shadow.

To short-circuit the illusion, simply place your finger across the central section of the image at the horizon line.

"Science" is the gathering and interpreting of perceived data. But how "good" can our "science" be if our brains are "hard wired" to misinterpret our perceptions?

How can we learn how to STOP deceiving ourselves so we can STOP blaming others for our own misunderstandings?

Peter

[Mineko]

Greetings Folks,

Is there "Anything That Works?" Of course there is. Quite a few working systems are being talked about in these threads. So, what is the problem? Why do so many "well meaning" and "interested" people not "see" the solutions being offered?

The real answer is quite disturbing, but here it is. Our PERCEPTION is TRAINED to be FAULTY!

Here is a perfect example.



Believe it or not, the two squares are the exact same shade of grey. So, why does the one on the top look darker? The reason is that our brains are trained to interpret the shading and the edge effects so that we "believe" that the upper square is a brightly lit dark object while the lower one is a light colored object in shadow.

To short-circuit the illusion, simply place your finger across the central section of the image at the horizon line.

"Science" is the gathering and interpreting of perceived data. But how "good" can our "science" be if our brains are "hard wired" to misinterpret our perceptions?

How can we learn how to STOP deceiving ourselves so we can STOP blaming others for our own misunderstandings?

Peter

Freaky...

I have to agree, it'd be nice to stop misunderstanding things.

[velacreations]

"Science" is the gathering and interpreting of perceived data. But how "good" can our "science" be if our brains are "hard wired" to misinterpret our perceptions

The problem I see is trying to make evidence fit a hypothesis rather than forming a hypothesis based on available data.

To put it simply: bias. If you want to see free energy, you will. But, that doesn't mean it is really there.

A common thing in the threads of "working systems" is that someone did it at one time (supposedly), but it cn't be recreated. Then, people say we don't know the science well enough to recreate the effect. But what is more plausible, that a backyard tinkerer unlocked a great mystery of the universe, or that he misinterpreted his results?

[EMCSQ]

..several valid options

In France at least 2 Inventors :
Femradd and another one with a mechanical device with electrical output.
There is no input power needed for them. Eventualy to start them , but it's all.
The mechanical device ; those you can hear a gears running through operation: at least 3 occurencies : a russian , a israelian (site closed) and that french one. On Pesn there is an amphibian vehicle introduced with claims to have a self-running device. I could take a trip to both french locations just to prove if they are valid. But I have debts on the house , that will be paid off in less then 1 1/2 year. When this is done priority 1 will be to have a free energy device because you will suffer a steadily decreasing living standard , if you don't install them.
Luckily the size of the roofs combined will be high enough to get my electricity bill cut down to zero by installing solar panels.
And by that time I will know which other alternatives are valid.
The alternative Energy market here in Germany is still growing .
New HV-DC Lines are beeing built over the next years , that connect the north , where the Wind -Turbine parks are installed in the north sea to the south where for example the automotive industry exists as consumer.
All this is payed by tax or raising electricity prices. You must do something to compensate.

[soundiceuk]

The problem I see is trying to make evidence fit a hypothesis rather than forming a hypothesis based on available data.

To put it simply: bias. If you want to see free energy, you will. But, that doesn't mean it is really there.

A common thing in the threads of "working systems" is that someone did it at one time (supposedly), but it can't be recreated. Then, people say we don't know the science well enough to recreate the effect. But what is more plausible, that a backyard tinkerer unlocked a great mystery of the universe, or that he misinterpreted his results?

Hi velacreations, would you class solar, wind, tidal, fission or fusion as "free energy"?

What about gravity?


One of the most promising technologies in my eyes is harnessing the energy of gravity, centrifugal force and inertia combined.

Mikhail Dmitriyev's technology:

addition4.Full mixed loads - YouTube


Purely Primatives experiments to validate Mikhail's claims:

Dmitriyev Weight Rotation Test 1 - YouTube

Dmitriyev Weight Rotation Test 2 - YouTube

Dmitriyev Weight Rotation Test #3 - YouTube


His last comment being:

This is a fairly incredible phenomena. Doubling the weight results in almost no incremental increase in current draw from the motor!! I believe that this validates his claim of overunity.

I know Mikhail and Purely Primatives are building more advanced prototypes.

Do you think they are spending their time and money wisely to help humanity or are they dellusional?


Also, on a different note. What do you make of the patent office rejection of Moray's technology? Have you read that?

Cheers,

Paul

[velacreations]

Hi velacreations, would you class solar, wind, tidal, fission or fusion as "free energy"?

no, I don't consider those as free energy, but others do. See my free energy device earlier in this thread, as it meets similar requirements by that definition, and I think we would all agree that it isn't really free energy.

What about gravity?

same as above, though if you have a device that converts gravity into useful power, that would be really great. Just because I don't consider it "free energy" doesn't mean it sn't useful or revolutionary.

Do you think they are spending their time and money wisely to help humanity or are they dellusional?

I think the jury is still out on this device. I am not convinced of the power gains shown in those videos. There might be something here, but I don't see it being replicated and measured properly, yet.

Also, on a different note. What do you make of the patent office rejection of Moray's technology? Have you read that?

I haven't read it, or if I have, I can't remember it specifically.

[velacreations]

What do folks make of Imhotep's device: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ead.php?t=2003

Anything there? Any useful power being produced?

[Farmhand]

Hi Vela, How can you not consider solar, wind, hydro ect. to be free energy.
It's not like running a cable from my neighbors socket, no one pays it's free.

If you don't consider those free energy then nothing is, end of story, stop looking.
There is no such thing as over unity as such in that energy is coming from nowhere.
No one that I know of thinks energy can come from nowhere. It is all we can do
is to collect energy either with no input totally free like a solar panel, wind,
hydro ect. ( not reliable).

I think what most people are looking for is a way to use some energy to get
more, just like a heat pump or such where a C.O.P. is applicable. And the
system is reliable in that it will work 365 days a year 24/7 with a usable
output above what is input.

eg, 100 watts input 1000 watts output. Or even 10 watts in 20 watts out would
be groundbreaking if real.

Forgive me but i think I understand what you think a free energy device is
not, but I'm not sure what you think a free energy device would be or should
be. Could you explain what would qualify a device as a "free energy device".

I think I am seeing extremists on both ends of the spectrum but no rational
debate based on previously defined and mutually understood terms.

It all comes back to terms and definitions, I made a thread to try to get input
from the members so we could agree on acceptable meanings of terms and
define what we mean when we type certain words. Like "back emf or counter
emf", "scalar", over unity, the list go's on, it seems there is a lot of wasted
time in argument over misunderstandings due to poorly defined terms.

Cheers

[velacreations]

Hi Vela, How can you not consider solar, wind, hydro ect. to be free energy.
It's not like running a cable from my neighbors socket, no one pays it's free.

well, it isn't free, you just pay for it up front. My solar system cost me a few thousand dollars, so hardly free. But, I wasn't really thinking about $$$ cost when asked about that.

If you don't consider those free energy then nothing is, end of story, stop looking.
There is no such thing as over unity as such in that energy is coming from nowhere.
No one that I know of thinks energy can come from nowhere. It is all we can do
is to collect energy either with no input totally free like a solar panel, wind,
hydro ect. ( not reliable).

There is input in all of those devices, though. Lots of energy required to make the panels, the wire, the batteries, components, magnets, etc. Again, you are paying for it up front, so it "looks" free, and it might eventually have a COP >1 (if used long enough).

Here's my problem with that definition. It isn't free, it is just free to you. You don't input the energy, but like my example, someone else does. So, "free" is relative, at best, in this definition.

I agree that the energy has to come from somewhere, but where is the biggest bang for our buck. Where can we extract the most usable energy?

I think what most people are looking for is a way to use some energy to get
more, just like a heat pump or such where a C.O.P. is applicable. And the
system is reliable in that it will work 365 days a year 24/7 with a usable
output above what is input.

eg, 100 watts input 1000 watts output. Or even 10 watts in 20 watts out would
be groundbreaking if real.

yes, this is more what I consider free energy. And a wind generator or solar or similar device could achieve this if used long enough. But, the COP>1 is not automatic. If you break a solar panel in year 4, you haven't achieved anything.

If we get to ignore the energy contained in manufacturing the components, and in conditioning them (magnets), then the field changes completely. Then, all of a sudden, there is free energy everywhere, but how useful is it, really? If you have to spend 1 unit of energy constructing a device that in 20 years will finally return that 1 unit of energy, what have you achieved? COP >1?

Think of it this way, if you buy a alkaline AA battery and use it in a device, is that free energy? Ok, it cost some $$, but you didn't put in any energy to get the energy out. Someone else did, though, and really, we haven't achieved anything.

It all comes back to terms and definitions, I made a thread to try to get input
from the members so we could agree on acceptable meanings of terms and
define what we mean when we type certain words. Like "back emf or counter
emf", "scalar", over unity, the list go's on, it seems there is a lot of wasted
time in argument over misunderstandings due to poorly defined terms.

personally, I think we focus too much on the terms, and we should really be focused on the devices. If solar and wind count, then we can all relax, because solar and wind are readily available, manufactured on large scales, reasonably inexpensive, and are more cost effective than just about any device on this forum.

If we focus more on gravity devices (do we have anything working in this class?) or "radiant" energy or whatever, then it is less of a question about "free energy" as it is of a device that actually works and can produce usable power.

I WANT to believe in a lot of devices on this forum, like Ufopolitics' motor/generator system and similar devices, where we can input 1kWh and output 3kWh. Unfortunately, few of these devices can be verified or replicated.

In the end, I don't care what we call it, I just want something that works.

[mbrownn]

What do folks make of Imhotep's device: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ead.php?t=2003

Anything there? Any useful power being produced?

Yes, but its small, milliwatts. The device itself, apart from being a fan does not produce anything other than the conditions for a battery anomaly to occur. The overunity is when we compare what we put in with the mechanical work done and what is found in the battery. This apparent gain is in the battery and there has been no "accepted" process put forward as to how it happens, but it is real.

It is also scalable, have you built and tested one?

I think you should, they are fascinating and useful too. You can even use them to increase the overall output from a solar system.

[velacreations]

in related news, JLN has released a new update:
The GEGENE : a Great Efficiency GENErator with a Tesla bifilar coil...

Let me know what you guys think of that.

[velacreations]

It is also scalable, have you built and tested one?

I think you should, they are fascinating and useful too. You can even use them to increase the overall output from a solar system.

I have not built one, but I have been reading about it. Seems simple enough, but I'm still looking at it.

I would be interested in how it could increase the output of a solar system, as that is what powers my home. I used sealed lead acid batteries as storage.

Give us your thoughts on it, and I can play with some things, take measurements, post results. If it could increase my output, even by a little bit, it would still be very interesting.

[velacreations]

check out the GEGEBNE link from above, very interesting, lots of measurements. JLN is stll doing tests, but this is simple enough just about anyone could do it. It does have some limitations, but COP of 1.7-2.5 is very interesting.

JLN has many examples of interesting, working devices. Some exhibit COP >1, based on his results. Some of the devices are fairly complicated, but this one is simple.

[mbrownn]

I have not built one, but I have been reading about it. Seems simple enough, but I'm still looking at it.

I would be interested in how it could increase the output of a solar system, as that is what powers my home. I used sealed lead acid batteries as storage.

Give us your thoughts on it, and I can play with some things, take measurements, post results. If it could increase my output, even by a little bit, it would still be very interesting.

You could use the Bedini fan, joule thief, stingo Bedini solid state oscillator or similar device for this.

When the light level drops so that the charging circuit trips out because your panels are producing less than 12v you could still power one of these circuits. These circuits use inductive kickback to pulse the battery and so will produce a much higher voltage than the input. Typically this voltage can be 10x or more than the supply if required.

Bedini and similar circuits have been used with solar panels to charge 12v batteries in the middle of the night even with cloud cover and no moon. Ok in these conditions the output is very small but in dawn and dusk times as well as the full moon significant amounts of charge can be gained at very high efficiency

Even during the day a Bedini circuit can improve charging efficiency so you store more watts of energy with the same panels and the same light exposure. Normal charging gives around 70 to 80% charging efficiency, pulse chargers are even better, the Bedini chargers are typically above 95%.

One thing you will need to watch in my opinion, gel batteries can have a shorter life if over charged as they dry out, I choose flooded lead acid because you can always top them up. Most of the cheaper sealed batteries are the flooded type and can be opened and topped up if you know what you are doing.

Another advantage to Bedini type circuits is that they de-sulphate lead acid batteries keeping their capacity to a maximum. Some mistake this regain in capacity as overunity but it is not. Even brand new batteries can gain in capacity because the plate structure is reformed with a finer grain giving a higher surface area after a few cycles.

Bedini chargers can recondition dead lead acid batteries provided the cell structure is intact and there is no short.

If you choose to buy one of these chargers or a kit they are available from the inventor here Welcome to Renaissance Charge -

I always built my own Bedini devices and didn't follow his exact instructions but was able to produce excellent results