-
-
bi,
All you do is come here to twist the words of REAL contributors to try and make them look bad and yourself appear an expert. You called me greedy for wanting to make some money from something I have spent a lot of time and money on for about 12 years now rather than GIVING it away to people who haven’t bothered to build the LAST thing I gave away. So I simply suggested you prove to us your “lack of greed” by giving away the paycheck you make for YOUR work. And for that I am called a bully? It’s always all about you. What you think. What YOU know to be true. What YOUR beliefs are. “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”. You would be well served by remembering that.
You do NOT understand how electricity works, and when you say energy cannot be created, you are also wrong. In YOUR philosophy it can only be converted from one form to another. When you are focused on converting there are ALWAYS losses. How many dams on the Colorado River use the same water over and over to make energy. (Not a great example I know, but the basic idea is there) Is that water converted to electricity? No it is NOT. We can use energy over and over to make energy while recovering the energy we used. The 3 Battery system proved that to the very, very, very few who paid attention.
I know you are going to drag out the text books to argue with me, but all the text books do is take erroneous information and put it in writing.
The best I can do for those of you who would walk this path is the following: Electricity is like water, when there is an opportunity (potential) to flow from a higher concentration to a lower concentration, it will, until it EQUALIZES. Then the flow will stop.
Take a battery. Charge it all the way up. Measure it with your meter. Does the meter tell you how much energy is in that battery? No, it does not! It tells you the potential difference between one side of the battery and the other. When we charge it, we are NOT putting energy into it (ok, maybe a little as some energy is always converted the last time you used the battery because of losses in the circuit from heat/resistance etc.) what we are actually doing is pounding on the battery with electrical force to move all the charges (or to make it simple, the ENERGY) to one side of the battery. Now we have created what Tom Bearden refers to as the "dipole." Why, if you leave that battery sitting for weeks does it lose its “charge? Did the energy fairy come and suck it all out of the battery? Modern theory says it went back into the electrolyte in some kind of chemical reaction. CRAP! The electrolyte in the battery is a terrible conductor, but it is STILL a conductor. The energy wants to EQUALIZE between the two sides of the battery, and that’s what it did. When you put your meter on the battery NOW,it still measures the difference between the two sides. Just now that difference is far less. When we connect a load, like an electric motor, to the battery, we are giving that energy a path of least resistance to travel from one side of the battery through the load (running it basically for “free”) but equalizing with the other side of the battery. We have, in the words of Tom Bearden, “killed the dipole.” The load didn’t “use up” the energy in the battery it’s still all there. It’s just equalized between the two sides. Without this movement of energy from one side of the battery to the other, would the motor have run? if the energy REALLY just went into the motor and was converted, would that even work? Now we have to pound on the battery with electrical energy again to force all the energy to one side. Have you ever really COMPARED the amount of energy used to charge a battery to the amount you got out of it?
All you have to do is figure out a way to USE that energy without killing the dipole. Simple. Not just use it, but use it over and over and over again like the many dams on the Colorado.
What I just explained about how a battery actually works is, I admit, my theory. But it is based on what 12 years of working with the 3 Battery system has taught me. The rest of what I just shared is far more than a theory.Last edited by Turion; 05-08-2020, 05:27 PM.“Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
—Bernhard Haisch, AstrophysicistComment
-
I have suggested this experiment before. Charge a battery and let it rest. Now discharge it to a load through a meter measuring how many watts were used. Now connect your battery charger to wall through a kilowatt meter and take a look at how many watts it takes to charge that battery. WHY so many just to charge it... just to replace a little energy. The reason is because you are NOT just charging it. You are pushing a big rock up a hill so you can take advantage of the work it will do on the way down, but not only THAT, the rock is pushing BACK. The energy does not WANT to be all on one side of a battery, but we force it there. THAT TAKES WORK. More work than replacing what modern theory would tell us the battery "lost" when it ran a motor for a while.
But this is NOT the thread for this discussion, so I will say no more about it. I've had my say. I'll let history judge my words. I'm happy with that.Last edited by Turion; 05-08-2020, 07:39 PM.“Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
—Bernhard Haisch, AstrophysicistComment
-
I wrote, "What does come out can be captured and boosted to a higher potential (optional) and reused before returning to the source battery. Turion has shared those circuits here."Originally posted by bistander View Post
Twisted my words, and don't try to claim ignorance about his and other member's battery, motor, boost converter circuits. You know good and well which circuits were being mentioned.
Comment
-
Huh! It was an exact quote from you. Albeit a partial. I did include the icon so anyone can easily click and see your complete post. I twisted no words and have no bad intent. I'm genuinely curious about that to which you refer.Originally posted by Cadman View Post
Is it the 1BGS which he posted and I replicated?
biComment
-
Hmm. Looks familiar. I think I ran that exactly as you say, recently. I've done it hundreds of times, maybe thousands, over my career. If I don't see the recent test data, I'll run it again.Originally posted by Turion View Post
You say "Now discharge it to a load through a meter measuring how many watts were used. Now connect your battery charger to wall through a kilowatt meter and take a look at how many watts it takes to charge that battery." I assume you mean watt hours, or joules. I'll post results over on the bistander thread.
It'd be nice to start talking about science instead of me.
biComment
-
He has been attacking everyone for years. Clown show paid antagonist. Don't let him get to you, that is the plan. Just keep tearing on a piece of flesh sucking out the life force. This is what BYE does. We know that we can't change that. We have tried to help BYE for over 5 years. Thx for chiming in.Originally posted by Cadman View Post
Comment
-
No you won't your thread is dead so you have to come to mine. And no you are not trying to complete any experiments Turion has mentioned. Just more smoke. Show your work or go away.Originally posted by bistander View Post
Comment
-
I do not attack anyone. I comment on what they post. OK, I admit once in a while Turion gets to me and I call him greedy. But for the most part, I refrain, and try hard to stick to the subject. I attempt to help. Most often, the OP doesn't appreciate it, but I do get PMs from members thanking me.Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
He has been attacking everyone for years. Clown show paid antagonist. Don't let him get to you, that is the plan. Just keep tearing on a piece of flesh sucking out the life force. This is what BYE does. We know that we can't change that. We have tried to help BYE for over 5 years. Thx for chiming in.
biComment
-
I never said THAT, and you know it. I notice you didn't respond to my post pointing that out. That's what you DO. avoid the truth, and uphold that party line that Free Energy is impossible. Good luck with THAT,Originally posted by bistander View Post
You have called me "greedy." You have called me a liar, a fraud, a con man. You have said I spread B.S. Yet NOW you are pretending to be a little lamb who never er says anything bad about anyone. Poor little you. So picked on. Remember, I have screen shots of all those posts. I keep track of that stuff.
“Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
—Bernhard Haisch, AstrophysicistComment
-
Originally posted by Turion View Post
I never said THAT, and you know it. I notice you didn't respond to my post pointing that out. That's what you DO. avoid the truth, and uphold that party line that Free Energy is impossible. Good luck with THAT,
You have called me "greedy." You have called me a liar, a fraud, a con man. You have said I spread B.S. Yet NOW you are pretending to be a little lamb who never er says anything bad about anyone. Poor little you. So picked on. Remember, I have screen shots of all those posts. I keep track of that stuff.
You don't remember this or the discussion that followed?Originally posted by Turion View PostComment
-
What I don't remember is saying I know more about the physics of motion than Issac Newton. I say that I never made that statement. You say I did. When and where? Show us. Or are you lying?“Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
—Bernhard Haisch, AstrophysicistComment
-
You said I TOLD you that I know more about the physics of motion than Isaac Newton. I never TOLD you that did I? I never ever said those words. I never said what you claim I said. That's why you AVOIDED it when I called you on it. You are INTERPRETING what I say according to YOUR rules once again. In other words, you LIED when you said I TOLD you I know more about the physics of motion than Isaac Newton. LIAR. You're a bald faced liar trying to cover up your lies with misdirection like you usually do. Liar, liar, pants on fire. That's your game, putting words in people's mouths, twisting what people say. Picking out bits and pieces you can jump on and correct or impugn. Because that's all you know how to do. Never a contribution. Never an original thought. Always negative crap. We know what you are bi. It's clear to everyone here. You aren't searching for the truth. You're trying to ram your version of alternate facts down everyone's throats. Well it won't WORK with me. I know what is real. I know what is possible. I have seen it on my bench, and on the benches of OTHERS involved in this work. Once you KNOW the truth, no flyweight propagandist like YOU is going to get us to back off. You said there was NO SUCH THING as "speed up under load" and DEMANDED that we prove it. I wouldn't show videos, but others wanted to show you up, so they DID. So now you've admitted it's possible but, according to YOU of no importance or significance. You are such a JOKE.
And by the way, I stand by the statement you quoted above. A heavier rotor is a bigger load on the motor and increases the amp draw of the motor. Period. In what way does that violate ANY of Newtons Laws of motion? It doesn't. Just you trying misdirection AGAIN.Last edited by Turion; 05-09-2020, 05:10 AM.“Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
—Bernhard Haisch, AstrophysicistComment
Tweet
Comment