The ultimate secret of free energy: Split the postive AND the negative

[lamare]

As for your comment about the static nature of gravity. Man I have been saying that for quite a long time. I am glad you understand this concept. I have a question for you though. How does this process work in your concept?

Mine is very simple. Molten whatever is in the center of our planet. The churning of the molten material causes the static potential that is held inside our planet. And when you have a standing potential like that it draws charges into itself. This real charge flow is both responsible for our weather and gravity. Ever seen a tornado or any other storm you can imagine? What happens when you pull the plug on the drain in the tub? Those charges are actually going into our core and the resulting drag it has on the other charges in our planets shells get drawn down and form our weather. Ever heard of ley lines? What shape are they when viewed in Google earth (there is a plugin for that) ? Remember that our atmosphere is very fluid like. What about the peculiar shape at Saturn's north pole? Are you starting to see the direction here.

Interesting stuff to think about. There's a few things we have to get straight:

1. The medium in which charges, matter, etc. occur can be described as a fluid/gas like medium trough which waves known as electromagnetic can travel. So, the corrected Maxwell equations (without the postulated charges that supposedly cause the waves) describe the properties of the medium.

2. Matter and therefore charges are nothing but localized electromagnetic waves in this medium. Since the electric component has to do with pressure-like waves trough the medium and the magnetic component has to do with rotation of the medium, matter and/or charges are nothing but rotating vortexes in the ether, as shown by Haramein:

Now that brings us to the question: what is the ether itself like? Are there charges / particles that small that we can't see them which make up the ether?

The answer to that question seems to be: Yes, since the whole thing seems to be a fractal, you can have charges/particles at any size you like. It only depends on the frequency of the waves at what scale these can occur.

And that is very strange. On the one hand we say that matter/charges are just waves propagating trough the ether, so there must be something these waves flow trough, so on the other hand we say the ether consists of very tiny pieces of matter/charges, which make up the medium, the ether.

So, when you talk about charges flowing into the core of the earth and such, which ones are you talking about? The ones we would know as matter like electrons and the like, or those much smaller ones we would call the ether?

I think you may be talking about both of them.

However, there are no attraction forces down at the lowest level. It all comes down to pressurewaves going trough the ether. Remember the cymatic stuff? It's these pressurewaves trough the ether we interpret as "attraction forces", while in reality they are standing electrostatic wave patterns. These look like attraction forces, but are nothing but pressure differences in the ether.

Given the cymatic exercises, I think the earth exists as a quiet region in a gigantic standing wave pattern, just like these:

And then the Lay-lines, pyramid locations as well as the hollow earth theory and all those "sacred geometries" makes a lot of sense.

[Aaron]

vorex models

matter and/or charges are nothing but rotating vortexes in the ether, as shown by Haramein:

Shown by Haramein???

Lamare, why not quote people that actually DID come up with the
vortex type models?? Carl Frederick Krafft and others. Most of these
modern day "experts" are simply regurgitating much of what has already
been known and published for a hundred years - it just never got any
attention because it went against the grain. Even Maxwell showed
vorticular models. And there is very interesting gravity research in
Nazi Germany that goes deep into vorticular models like this.

And they're practically inverse models of how the magnetic particles
"polarized aether" is moving into and out of magnets where it goes
out the ends and into the center - the positive particles at least while
the negative magnetic particles are flowing simultaneously in the
opposite direction.

[lamare]

Shown by Haramein???

Lamare, why not quote people that actually DID come up with the
vortex type models?? Carl Frederick Krafft and others. Most of these
modern day "experts" are simply regurgitating much of what has already
been known and published for a hundred years - it just never got any
attention because it went against the grain. Even Maxwell showed
vorticular models. And there is very interesting gravity research in
Nazi Germany that goes deep into vorticular models like this.

And they're practically inverse models of how the magnetic particles
"polarized aether" is moving into and out of magnets where it goes
out the ends and into the center - the positive particles at least while
the negative magnetic particles are flowing simultaneously in the
opposite direction.

I didn't know about these. I know that Meyl talks about vorticular models and says that they can explain gravity, but I didn't really get that, until I saw the pictures Haramein shows. A picture does say more than a hundred words let alone equations. So, I was just quoting where I got it from, and I like this particular picture, because it gives so many insight in one picture....

As for Nazi Germany, I know about the "flugscheiben" and that Victor Schauberger was involved into that kind of research, but I don't know the details. To me, at this moment, it suffices to have a general idea about what this is all about, since I am trying to focus on explaining the free energy principles related to the electric field.

[Aromaz]

There can be no dispute about who, what, where and how of your own resources. Your resource is the person where you got the info from and it is correct in quoting that person.

There is also another point in relation; by following up and doing deeper research to verify weather your resource has the right info you should stumble accross the originator.

The person whom you learned it from is still to be honoured with your quote; however then if you have references of prior info; it is good practice to quote such. Krafft has published since early 1930's; however I will say Haramein (Not one of my favourite people; but . . .) does explain it in a manner which is understandable. Unlike Krafft et al.

[gyula]

...
This is an application as you describe just to prove the point in one of
many ways.

YouTube - Self Running Bedini Oscillator

That circuit works with or without the ground rod - just better with.
I have done many variations of that circuit and they all work and the
capacitor on the front maintains it's potential difference or voltage.

Hi Aaron,

Thank you for your reply and I have read your answers you gave to Dave (Web000x) too.

Unfortunately, I am not convinced by the practical reference you showed in the above video. I think of the oscilloscope ground clip for instance that probably still gave ground potencial to your circuit, I can only hope you were aware of that back then.
And the energy levels involved in your setup shown were in the pico or nanoJoule range.
Some years ago a very good experimenter from Norway built a bipolar transistor blocking oscillator (after Naudin) and to his great surprise the oscillator "continued operating" when he disconnected the battery. The circuit included big electrolytic caps, and they maintained their voltage level somewhere between 2 - 3V DC for several hours. Then, on the following day he realised his laptop was on the table, about 50-60cm away from the circuit and the laptop generated electromagnetic energy and his circuit was a receiver: when he disconnected the battery, it did not oscillate like a blocking oscillator before but worked as an antenna: the oscillator coil worked as a pick-up coil and the transistor worked as a rectifier and all this were keeping the voltage level in the capacitors.

I do not mean this was the case in your demo setup, I only say that at such very low energy levels like picoJoules, the experimenter are facing several possible pitfalls to "choose from". And I have no problem with "outside" energy sources that can be utilized, as long as they are not man-made.

Another known phenomena in electrolytic capacitors is the so-called memory effect when the dielectric material inside tries to "rearrange itself" into a previous state when it was biased by a certain potencial level. Typical example for this the puffer caps in power supplies: they keep a few Volts for hours or even days across their pins after you switched the mains voltage off.
While the power supply in the equipment works for hours or for days, the dielectric material 'gets formed' inside the puffer capacitor, then after switch off, they try to maintain their 'formed' inside molecular structure.

Have you experienced at least some hundred milliJoules, not to mention a few Joules involved in such setups (as you showed in the above video) where no batteries are used?

Re on electrets: I fully agree, after making an electret like for instance by Mototaro Eguchi ( Electrets ) and shorting it periodically into (for instance) a battery or into a transformer etc then you surely have a working setup which gives a few Joule useful energy, "just out of nothing", for a certain period of time (for say from a few months to a few years, depending on the quality of the dielectric material), then it "depletes". Certainly, you can make several electrets to maintain the "process of generating energy" for sure.

So in such electrets "the killing the dipole" process is very very slow indeed. You have to use several scores of such electret setups to receive really useful quantity of energy for meeting even a very very moderate household's energy needs though.

I hope some day either the theory you mention or someone's else theory really really produces useful energy sources in practice that are enviroment friendly (do not use any battery or other harmful material).

rgds, Gyula

[Jbignes5]

Interesting stuff to think about. There's a few things we have to get straight:

1. The medium in which charges, matter, etc. occur can be described as a fluid/gas like medium trough which waves known as electromagnetic can travel. So, the corrected Maxwell equations (without the postulated charges that supposedly cause the waves) describe the properties of the medium.

2. Matter and therefore charges are nothing but localized electromagnetic waves in this medium. Since the electric component has to do with pressure-like waves trough the medium and the magnetic component has to do with rotation of the medium, matter and/or charges are nothing but rotating vortexes in the ether, as shown by Haramein:

Now that brings us to the question: what is the ether itself like? Are there charges / particles that small that we can't see them which make up the ether?

The answer to that question seems to be: Yes, since the whole thing seems to be a fractal, you can have charges/particles at any size you like. It only depends on the frequency of the waves at what scale these can occur.

And that is very strange. On the one hand we say that matter/charges are just waves propagating trough the ether, so there must be something these waves flow trough, so on the other hand we say the ether consists of very tiny pieces of matter/charges, which make up the medium, the ether.

So, when you talk about charges flowing into the core of the earth and such, which ones are you talking about? The ones we would know as matter like electrons and the like, or those much smaller ones we would call the ether?

I think you may be talking about both of them.

However, there are no attraction forces down at the lowest level. It all comes down to pressurewaves going trough the ether. Remember the cymatic stuff? It's these pressurewaves trough the ether we interpret as "attraction forces", while in reality they are standing electrostatic wave patterns. These look like attraction forces, but are nothing but pressure differences in the ether.

Given the cymatic exercises, I think the earth exists as a quiet region in a gigantic standing wave pattern, just like these:

And then the Lay-lines, pyramid locations as well as the hollow earth theory and all those "sacred geometries" makes a lot of sense.

Ok lets try to focus here. There is a medium of dielectric particles. They are activated and pass static potentials to attract real charges. Real charges in this medium are the potential that the medium is both reactive to and pass only the static potential to the outside world.
So the medium of space is like water. With the charges being the driving force and the source of all energetic exchanges.
Now I think I gave reference to the model which showed that in a magnetic field you have the lines of force but there is a cross field of the dieletric that creates shells as well. Lets say you have a point charge and you do the magnetic fields that extend from the point charge. Well there will be spherical shells around that point charge that are bunchings of the medium or dielectric, why? Because they are attracted to the smaller real charges that shell up around the bigger real charge(s) in the middle.

Let me see if I can did up the reference I showed earlier.

*edit* found it and here it is enjoy. This might complete your understanding from a source to source aspect and all the connections between.

http://ia311542.us.archive.org/3/ite...m028893mbp.pdf

It is quite big 17mb but give it some time and check it out. Pay close attention to the figures 1(a)-1(d) and you can see that the normal lines of force cross another line at 90 degrees from the magnetic lines. That shell is actually the division of charges or the dielectric medium. The dielectric medium is reactant to potential but is not conductive in the traditional sense. It is purely a division of space that lets potential have a force over distance but like in our search for interesting and weird happenings if one smashes a crystal you get a tremendous electrical event that happens example electric lighters. <- What happens on the biggest is what happens on the smallest scales. Since the dielectric medium I suspect is crystaline in nature then it would seem right if we looked at a coil being pulsed. The field expands and drives the dielectric medium into divisions then that force is removed and the medium rebounds back inwards and crashes the point of origin causing an electric buildup as the medium tries to retrain a balance. But we now have a coil of wire in that space and it picks up that event and it energizes the coil with the exact same type of energy that an electric lighter uses. So back emf is just this event. Total voltage and zero current.

What can this be used for then? Well it can feed a source point we choose to maintain a real charge point that can pull other charges into for which we could steer away from the source just as it is getting to that source to our load. Remember these are real charges being attracted to a higher potential so they would be real current in our load.

[lamare]

There is a medium of dielectric particles. They are activated and pass static potentials to attract real charges.

The point is that the "real charges" you are talking about consist of rotating vortexes in the "medium of dielectric particles". So, the "real charges" in the bigger picture are some combination of rotating "dielectric particles" flowing around in such a way that you get these vortices. And the whole of these vortices is what would be the "real charge", a "particle". So, the balls in Harameins picture represent the "medium dielectric particles", the whole, the apple-like thing, is the bigger particle.

[Jbignes5]

Ok..

Yes I understand. I just wanted to clarify that ok. Some do not know this stuff. I am well versed on Haramein. Although I have the same opinion of him as Aaron does. But thats not to demean what he has collected or now thinks he understands.

The problem I see with him is this. He is alone in his quest but for a select group who surrounds him. Any input to his "Talks" He wants you to pay for(literally)??? Hmm.. Weird..

That aside he has done a lot of collecting of any information he can gather. That does take talent but I think he has miss connected a few things and thats where I have picked up. It has to work as one unit. It has to include all the strange. It has to fit like a puzzle or it all looses meaning.

Please do read the pdf ok it will define the medium of the dielectric and why one can not exist without the other. It also shows you that we don't see the entire unit working. Our current system only is concerned with the working half or magnetic spectrum and this is one reason we can not attain the tap to let real movement into our systems or free energy(charges). Although some have touched on this it is very limited because they didn't see the whole picture and designed their systems not to interact with the invisible half fully.

[lamare]

So the medium of space is like water. With the charges being the driving force and the source of all energetic exchanges.

I'd say the medium of space is like matter. There are regions where it is like water, there are regions where it is like a gas and probably there are also regions where it is like a solid or even a plasma. That's what you would have to conclude if "it" is a fractal.

And then I would call "charges" "vortices". Now these vortices come in all kinds of shapes and sizes, but the most simple shape is the picture shown by Haramein, which I suspect that what we would call a free electron or a proton would look like.

Now I think I gave reference to the model which showed that in a magnetic field you have the lines of force but there is a cross field of the dieletric that creates shells as well. Lets say you have a point charge and you do the magnetic fields that extend from the point charge. Well there will be spherical shells around that point charge that are bunchings of the medium or dielectric, why? Because they are attracted to the smaller real charges that shell up around the bigger real charge(s) in the middle.

If you would have something like a point vortex, then you would have to consider two things:

1. Pressure like waves propagating from one "elementary" vortex to the next and/or straigt line movement of the "elementary" vortices, which would be the electric field. In this way of propagating any rotational component can be neglected.

2. Elementary vortices moving around in circles and/or spirals trough space. With this, the rotational component is what gives you what we call the magnetic component.

Of course, both components are always present, but opposit vortices (charges) can cancel each other out, so at a certain distance, you can get a situation that only one of the two remains. And I think that answers your question.

[Jbignes5]

I'd say the medium of space is like matter. There are regions where it is like water, there are regions where it is like a gas and probably there are also regions where it is like a solid or even a plasma. That's what you would have to conclude if "it" is a fractal.

And then I would call "charges" "vortices". Now these vortices come in all kinds of shapes and sizes, but the most simple shape is the picture shown by Haramein, which I suspect would be what what we would call a free electron or a proton would look like.



If you would have something like a point vortex, then you would have to consider two things:

1. Pressure like waves propagating from one "elementary" vortex to the next and/or straigt line movement of the "elementary" vortices, which would be the electric field. In this way of propagating any rotational component can be neglected.

2. Elementary vortices moving around in circles and/or spirals trough space. With this, the rotational component is what gives you what we call the magnetic component.

Of course, both components are always present, but opposit vortices (charges) can cancel each other out, so at a certain distance, you can get a situation that only one of the two remains. And I think that answers your question.

I think we mean the same thing but the scales keep changing. Meaning you look deeper while I am looking at the original scale. My view on the charges is exactly your view. A self contained vortex always flowing or moving. But that is not much different then the whole charge I mention.

I agree with you on the matter no matter concept. Meaning that matter is a separation of the medium with a locked in elementary(natural) dielectric network and based on it's density it has certain "conductivity" to the medium on the other side. Density is so underused it this sense. Both the density of the medium in local space to the density of the matter that is displacing the medium in that space plus the density of the ambient charges in that space as well which by the way would be limitless because of the flow of the network already in place from the natural processes.

This leads me to the discussion of negative and positive charges. If one looked at the 3d version of the Sierpinski triangle from here one can see two distinct models of the same gross form. Here is the link again.

Sierpinski triangle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again try to focus on "Analogues in higher dimensions" Section. I believe these are two models of directive subcomponents of charges. Having the same gross form but two distinct different directions of the forms. What I have not worked out yet is what polarity they are and weather or not they would operate in a dynamic way or become static when paired. I am still in the process of working out the gross stuff and will eventually go for the smallest. In this case this is better because we can infer backwards in the fractal but to do that you need to pick a much larger section to get a picture of the fractal to work from. The more I know about the larger the easier it will be to determine the smaller.
Click the picture of the two models and get as close as you can to see the models in detail.

It could be we are looking at the physical(red) mixed with the energy(blue) to form a complete charge carrier. We all know energy can flow in sheets or basically any geometric form we like. What if the blue is just energy guided to stay inside and it forms boundries that are defined by the physical structure of the charge carrier.

They could also be polar pairs as well. With the inverse having a different direction when oriented in the same geometric pattern of the whole(pyramid) when the two are looked at like structures. Or it could be one is the container (red) of charges or the carrier and the other (Blue) is the charge conductor. One (red) obviously is surface area bound and the other (Blue) is more solid. This means one type is a container and the other passes the potential of that container. Although they both contain base charges to keep the matter bound in that form they are capable of holding(Red) or passing(Blue) much more.

It is gonna be a bit before I can figure this out but with your help and others like you and I we should have no problem in doing so.

[Armagdn03]

Well I have time for one more post, so guess I will tick off a bunch of people.

Just what is 'Do Not Destroy the Dipole' anyway? Isn't that a cop out, common sense. Okay a battery can be considered a dipole and so can a permanent magnet, so saying we want a circuit that does not destroy it is saying what?
Well my take is it is saying we need a form of energy conversion in order to do our work and not use up the source (dipole). Really the statement is meaningless and says nothing about the approach.

If all the broadcasters of don't destroy the dipole understood it, then why not apply it? Many are very good mathematicians and granted may not be able to solder, but really, there are those that can and can follow instruction.

I get blasted from all sides and care less because it all comes back to energy conversion. Forget the dipole, convert form to different form.

I don't like the this PestWicked site as they have yet to say anything good about my direction or work so I can not bring myself to offer them anything worth value either.

Isn't that a cop out

You said it man!

[Jbignes5]

You said it man!

You know thats really funny. What is convert anyways. Everything converts this charge into something. Weather it is potential to move with or anything else for that matter. Conversion will always involve losses on our scale but if one knew what the fundamental rules were that keep matter from flying apart one could look at that process and devise a way to harness that eternal movement to never attain a balance.

Take for instance Tesla when he made the first hydroelectric plant in Niagra Falls. He saw a potential in the falling of the water that could be harnessed in such a way that it only momentarily diverted the flow and tap that energy to induce movement in copper wires. Nothing was consumed in that method and it should be the same method he used to run his much later experiment of the Pierce arrow. Provide a source(attractor), shield it from the environment and only let it interact where you want a flow to happen to attract outside charges to that flow. Tap or redirect the flow on it's way to the source and walla pure clean energy for anyone, anywhere in limitless quantities(based on components ability to channel those charges via it's mass ratio). I mean we all suspect that the charges flow into the systems we create. Well there has to be a way to strip them charges off before they get to the source.

[Armagdn03]

You know thats really funny. What is convert anyways. Everything converts this charge into something. Weather it is potential to move with or anything else for that matter. Conversion will always involve losses on our scale but if one knew what the fundamental rules were that keep matter from flying apart one could look at that process and devise a way to harness that eternal movement to never attain a balance.

Take for instance Tesla when he made the first hydroelectric plant in Niagra Falls. He saw a potential in the falling of the water that could be harnessed in such a way that it only momentarily diverted the flow and tap that energy to induce movement in copper wires. Nothing was consumed in that method and it should be the same method he used to run his much later experiment of the Pierce arrow. Provide a source(attractor), shield it from the environment and only let it interact where you want a flow to happen to attract outside charges to that flow. Tap or redirect the flow on it's way to the source and walla pure clean energy for anyone, anywhere in limitless quantities(based on components ability to channel those charges via it's mass ratio). I mean we all suspect that the charges flow into the systems we create. Well there has to be a way to strip them charges off before they get to the source.

Perhaps Dr. Stiffler is trying to say look past the given and "common sense" and be specific on method. Its like a person touting the mantra "don't use up the energy you started with" and claim it is the path to free energy.

Not a Bearden fan personally, lost touch with reality. Or perhaps, lacks the ability to communicate his ideas effectively into real world application.

[Aaron]

references

There can be no dispute about who, what, where and how of your own resources. Your resource is the person where you got the info from and it is correct in quoting that person.

There is also another point in relation; by following up and doing deeper research to verify weather your resource has the right info you should stumble accross the originator.

The person whom you learned it from is still to be honoured with your quote; however then if you have references of prior info; it is good practice to quote such. Krafft has published since early 1930's; however I will say Haramein (Not one of my favourite people; but . . .) does explain it in a manner which is understandable. Unlike Krafft et al.

I agree Aromaz. However, Lamare, myself and others acknowledge that
Einstein's theories are wrong. They have been proven wrong so many
times over it would take an encyclopedia to document it all. DePalma's
is probably the easiest that have been done and is probably easiest
for anyone to replicate. And there is no mass to energy conversion,etc...

When a theory is debunked, it no longer has the honor of being a theory,
it is simply a mistake. It doesn't even have the privilege of
reverting back to a hypothesis/postulation. Because at least with a
hypothesis, it hasn't been debunked yet.

I bring this up because Haramein is working out equations to essentially
make Einstein work. So anything predicated upon a faulty premise to begin
with (such as the theory of relativity), will in and of itself be faulty.
You can't make a faulty premise work, you just have to plain start over
with something else that makes more sense and/or has not yet
been debunked. It is better to build upon a fresh idea than to fix one
that is known to be riddled with errors.

Again, I agree you have to start somewhere - I just have a pet peeve
about these Johnny-come-lately "gurus" that are building a house on
a foundation of sand. And when they win awards for papers that are
simply paraphrasing other people's work that has been around for much
longer. They may have independently figured out the same stuff, but
being so pretentious as to actually believe they are the first to figure
certain things out that has already been in the literature for ages is
nonsense.

[Aaron]

oscillators, electrets, etc...

Unfortunately, I am not convinced by the practical reference you showed in the above video. I think of the oscilloscope ground clip for instance that probably still gave ground potencial to your circuit, I can only hope you were aware of that back then.
And the energy levels involved in your setup shown were in the pico or nanoJoule range.

I do not mean this was the case in your demo setup, I only say that at such very low energy levels like picoJoules, the experimenter are facing several possible pitfalls to "choose from". And I have no problem with "outside" energy sources that can be utilized, as long as they are not man-made.

Have you experienced at least some hundred milliJoules, not to mention a few Joules involved in such setups (as you showed in the above video) where no batteries are used?

Re on electrets: I fully agree, after making an electret like for instance by Mototaro Eguchi ( Electrets ) and shorting it periodically into (for instance) a battery or into a transformer etc then you surely have a working setup which gives a few Joule useful energy, "just out of nothing", for a certain period of time (for say from a few months to a few years, depending on the quality of the dielectric material), then it "depletes". Certainly, you can make several electrets to maintain the "process of generating energy" for sure.

So in such electrets "the killing the dipole" process is very very slow indeed. You have to use several scores of such electret setups to receive really useful quantity of energy for meeting even a very very moderate household's energy needs though.

I hope some day either the theory you mention or someone's else theory really really produces useful energy sources in practice that are enviroment friendly (do not use any battery or other harmful material).

rgds, Gyula

Hi Gyula,

The caps do the exact same thing with or without
the scope and I am familiar with how external power sources can
interfere as well as a scope.

That circuit is a feedback circuit where the output is going back to the
front isolated so that the front cap NEVER sees what is on the output.
So how does the front cap climb?

It is all about balancing the pressures of the input and output. Pressure
of the aetheric gas moving over the wires. When people talk about
matching impedance, they're probably do better without the jargon and
look at common sense analogies.

If a fan is in the window blowing OUT and all other windows are blocked,
it will pull air from outside the room. Let's say the door opens into the room
instead of opening by pulling it out away from the room. So close the door
just so the door edge barely touches the door jam by the latch. Let
go of the door and it pulls open and automatically gets to an open
distance that PERFECTLY corresponds to the open distance necessary
to let in the right amount of air that corresponds with the fan's ability
to blow out a certain amount of air. You're balancing the pressure or
the impedance of the system. If I closed the door just a tad bit less
than it opened by itself, it will pull a bit more load on the fan as it has
to pull air through a smaller hole (door opening). If I open it more than
it went by itself then the pressure moving past the door drops and the
system isn't as effective.

Making a circuit so that it automatically self adjusts the front and
back pressures in a way that it is intrinsic in the design of the circuit
and not by tuning it with a pot. And this is still completely different
than having the front and back locked together. The Velijko oscillator
does the same, it self adjusts the front and back and no matter how
high or low the pendulum swings, it is simply self adjusting to automatically
run at the highest efficiency possible - as it is intrinsic within the design.

With that particular circuit I showed, it has to operate within the voltage
range of the standing potential of the earth rods. So around 0.6v to 1v
at 33,000 but it proves the concept. And please understand this, because
it is very important, I think at least. There are multiple diodes all around
this circuit. The voltage drop on the diodes alone are GREATER than
the voltage in the caps. Yet the cap voltage passes through undisturbed
WITHOUT a drop and the diode still functions as a diode keeping the
voltage potential moving in one direction.

How do you pass x voltage through a diode with zero loss?
How do you pass x voltage through multiple diodes with zero loss?

What you mention about the electrets are true. However, the example
you use is closing the loop on those electrets by simply applying a load
directly to them. Closing the loop there DOES eventually force the
electret DIPOLE to decrease in its potential difference.

What I'm talking about is simply connecting a cap to the voltage potential
available at the terminals of the electret, removing it and applying that
newly created voltage potential in the "charged up" cap with a certain
amount of "charge" to a load - get the work out of it, then put the cap
back to the electret, "charge it up" and remove it from the electret and
apply to load, then put it back to the electret, charge it up remove and
apply to load repeat, repeat, repeat.

That doesn't close the loop on the dipole (electret) and doesn't cause it
to drop in potential difference itself. I'm talking about an open loop system
like a bucket and dipper system. The river is running by with infinite
potential. I don't build a dam to contain it. I simply take my dipper,
scoop out some water and put it in my bucket and repeat.

I do NOT want to apply a load with any significant impedances or
resistances directly to the electret or other dipole. I do NOT want to
kill the dipole, which would happen if I had "scores" of electrets connected
directly to a load trying to power the load directly from the electrets.
If you had a bunch of electrets - just apply a bunch of caps to "charge"
them up - remove the caps and apply to load - remove from load, apply
to electret, charge up, remove apply to load - repeat.

What I'm explaining are a few ways to take potential from a dipole,
put it to work without killing that source dipole.

A Bedini SSG already does this. It doesn't prevent the dipole from
reducing it's potential difference, but it does greatly slow it down and
it is a practical/useful example of a non-equilibrium system.

The Velijko oscillator and virtually every non-equilibrium system is
accomplishing this in one way or another.