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

[Aromaz]

@Aaron; this is a bit off topic, but I will remain with:
I do agree with you on all points; except that Haramain does deserve some credit for his method of explanation. And in this case he was the original source of info.

As for the rest: My thinking of him is on the same level as with many Pastors and Priests. Somewhere between 0 Kelvin and 0 Celsius. Take the money out from their appearance as speaker - and they will not make a speech.

On Einstein: His theory is valid - and invalid. Under certain conditions his theory is working and the only current option possible to use. Under different conditions his theory is wrong. He is wrong about the Big Bang. He is wrong about E=MC^2, he is wrong about the thoughts of how a Black hole operates. He is wrong about the medium of the universe . . .

Thus I agree with you.

[Aaron]

conservation of energy

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.

Jbignes,

Some people have a problem with Bearden because they are not able to
comprehend his work. I personally know people that have created over 1.0
cop systems simply from Bearden's theories - because they for the most
part are highly accurate.

A friend's partner helped design much of the communication systems for
the Apollo missions. In the early 90's I believe, they were at a meeting
where they met Bearden, were introduced to his theories and based on
Bearden's theories, they build some amplifiers that were WAY over 1.0
cop. So much so they actually entered into an agreement with a
power company conglomerate - that was probably 15 years ago.

Bearden calls himself a conceptualist. He conceived of some very
profound concepts and is able to convey them in a very sensible way
so that anyone with the wherewithal and enough sagacity to get it can
see that the man just plain makes sense - commons sense actually.
I don't believe a lot of the conspiracy stuff he talks about but I have
enough discernment to see what info of his makes sense and what info
doesn't apply to my goals and what info I just don't concern myself with.

I also think that he could explain his theories in 1/10 of the verbiage that
he normally uses but often, no exaggeration, his references in the
footnotes are LONGER than his own content. Anyone that wants to
judge Bearden, especially openly, should walk their own talk and actually
follow up on his references. The ones that have actually done this simply
don't have much room to say anything further against the man.

You're right about "conversion" (usually) involving losses along the way.
However, it needs to be put in context because there is no conservation
of energy - there is no changing of energy from one form to another.

It is a myth, a faulty paradigm that is a figment of the imagination and it
isn't about semantics. It is what it is and is anything but energy
transforming from one form to another.

In a closed loop system, there is no chance for the system to reset
itself with a new potential difference over and over. You start with
one potential difference and it steadily declines without having any
real resets.

It is all about having a dipole offer a potential difference, that is used
to instigate work, there are some losses normally and then ANOTHER
NEW POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE IS ESTABLISHED. That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Each cycle of input is dissipated back to the vacuum. When the second
cycle happens, it is NOT the same potential, it is entirely new potential
that enters the system from the different and new establishment of
another potential difference.

Energy is not transforming or changing forms.

You lift a ball in the air and 100% of what you put in is 100% dissipated
by the time it either reaches its peak or it is let go. A new potential
difference is established (new height from ground), NEW potential
enters the system (gravitational potential), it hits the ground and
depending on the efficiency of the ball to rebound, it will bounce back
into the air (80-90% for the average "superball" - the Wham-O was 93%)
and when it bounces up - the moment it reaches its peak, 100% of the
input is dissipated into the vacuum. Then when it is let go to fall, NEW
gravitational potential enters the system, etc... The original lift that
we did and expended x joules to do so was 100% dissipated by the
time we let go of the ball (if our hand is on it at the peak) or is
100% dissipated when the ball reaches its peak (if we threw it in the air).

So, ZERO amount of our input potential every got stored in the ball. There
is no such thing as storing the potential. It simply dissipated, reestablished
a new potential difference (height/dipole), NEW potential enters, causes
work impact, dissipation, etc... then when the ball bounces back up,
a new potential difference is established, NEW potential enters does work
repeat.

There is a small dwindling down through losses on each successive
bounce. The average bouncing ball IF at 83% efficient in reaching 83%
of the height of the previous bounce is operating at a COP of about 7.0.
That is almost 35 bounces by lifting a 83% efficient bouncing ball to
the height of 1 meter and the ball weights 40 grams.

Add up all the joules in work done to lift that weight to each height of
every bounce and it will be 7 times more than was required to lift it
to the original 1 meter. It will be COP of 5.0 if you stop after the
12th or 13th bounce.

So, there is no such thing as conservation of energy, it doesn't change
forms or transform - on each cycle it is brand new potential that comes
in that is entirely different from the original work done to get the system
going.

The only transformation that the potential (or energy if the potential
moves from one potential difference to another causing work by resistance)
goes through is COMPLETE DISSIPATION before the new cycle begins.
It didn't change into other energy, it completely dissipated.

[Aaron]

conditional parameters

On Einstein: His theory is valid - and invalid. Under certain conditions his theory is working and the only current option possible to use. Under different conditions his theory is wrong. He is wrong about the Big Bang. He is wrong about E=MC^2, he is wrong about the thoughts of how a Black hole operates. He is wrong about the medium of the universe . . .

Thus I agree with you.

Aromaz,

I'm totally with you that it applies under different conditions and in others
it doesn't. Just like classical thermodynamics and even the "laws" of motion.
They only apply under certain parameters and outside of those parameters,
they don't apply.

But the problem I have with the "theory" of Einstein is that it implies
it is accurate across the board when in fact it does not.

The establishment for the most part will not agree that his "theories" are
conditional and by allowing it to remain a theory implies/claims that it is
completely and wholly accurate in all conditions.

At least with thermodynamics, there is closed system of equilibrium
thermodynamics that is taught widely in the books - and then at least
there is non-equilibrium thermodynamics for open dissipative systems that
govern open looped systems. That is amazing in itself that this branch
of thermodynamics even exists - yet a few of my friends that are
degreed physicists have never even heard of non-equilibrium
thermodynamics until I brought it to their attention and it changed their
entire viewpoint of physics as a whole.

Then they researched and found that non-equilibrium thermodynamics has
been working its way into almost every branch of the natural sciences
including sociology, biology, etc...

Now if the same could happen with relativity and the laws of motion,
we'd really be making progress! lol

[Jbignes5]

I will not start this again Aaron..

I will not start an arguement again Aaron on the poor example you choose.

What exactly is radiative energy then Aaron. Isn't that a form of conversion of the original potential? Thats what these transporters are. They react to the potential difference between two points in space and then convert that imbalance to movement to attain the balance that would be supported by their surface area. Radiative events are in fact a conversion of the potential into real movement. It is a cause and effect loop that is governed by the transporters themselves. If that wasn't the case then everything would wind down because all that potential has no way to be realized or made real.
There are a lot of different radiative events as well. From heat to electrical. There is no refuting this. Everything is radiative and everything converts this potential into what it is capable of transforming into the real. It can do that because matter displaces the medium. It can affect and be affected by the medium, with the medium being vast. It all is connected except for one method no matter if you think it is or not, weather you believe it is closed or not it is all one big open system.

Even our best systems still radiate a certain amount of emf to the outside world. Some though have figured out how to separate the system from the rest but a majority are very very noisy in that sense.

Just how did Tesla work out this separation? Static shielding! It seems to be the only way to make a complete division of the medium of space where one wants that division. That is truely a closed system but it still needs an in and an out to interact with the gross charges around that system. Look at the Tesla hydro generation system and you would see that a division between the active potential has to be kept away from the rest of the system. So they used pipes and such to make that division and the water kept it's potential to be used by the generator he devised. If he just plopped the generator into the water it would have shorted out or became ineffective.

This to must be worked out in any system we can devise. It should tap the potential give it a channel to run through and somehow extract the charges as we need them. How is this potential maintained? Well me must not destroy the potential of the source but somehow redirect it to be converted to another form much like the natural process. Remember that energy can never be created nor destroyed only changed from one form to another. That is a given i would hope.

Lets look at one simple example of this. If Harimein is right and there is a black hole in all matter then this could be the link to the rest of the natural system. We know today from studying them that they are usually paired with a conduit of invisible energy, faster then light speed make this energy invisible to our eyes and detectors. Our sun is most probably the exit of the pair. As seen from watching them there is an active matter/energy separator or grinder at one point and then the energy gets sucked down the connection between the two. The exit of our sun is so full of energy that it can attract other matter into it and attain a higher capacity to hold the energy it can not radiate away. In fact the whole reason it radiates is because of matter. This increase is both driven by it's matter and the difference of the paired entry or other black hole. I agree with Harimein on that and it makes perfect sense. That one is an original thought by him as far as I know. I doubt anyone dared to think that there are connections out there that make it all connected in some way.

Now how do we relate that to our own planet. Well just like the sun we have or share a connection to it. It is one way of attaining a balance but our earth radiates also creating a slight imbalance in that system and continues the flow in that system. We share the radiative job as we are connected to the whole thing through our sun. Now looked at from a whole point of view we have a driving source(entrance) and a shielded connection(conduit) and an exit of the driver system. Everything else is a tap and resulting cyclic systems that are all dependent on the driver system. Like cogs in a gear set each is reliant to the closest connection. Change one aspect of that ratio and it either helps or slows the whole(complete) system down. In our case we have substantially altered our portion of the system through pollution. This has caused our planet to become like a massive layden Jar. Collecting massive charges into the center of our planet. This has increased the base potential of our system and is rightly affecting all the other connection that is our solar system since our planet doesn't need as much potential as the rest of the solar system it is causing strange things to happen like Jupiter releasing extreme radiative events to balance it's increased share of potential. Or Saturn that has formed a weird geometric shape at it's north pole from the increased share strengthening it's connection, hence forming a pattern in the clouds around that connection.

Why is it that we are seeing massive earth quakes and bigger then usual tropical storms and anything else we can see in our weather system? Our core is becoming more energetic from the charges that our potential is pulling in. Once you get to a certain point it will go into a runaway collection of charges. This overrides the connection potential to our sun and now feeds back into that connection. Remember these connections are bi directional. Think of it as a tank circuit. The potential is a moving potential that pulls the charges in different directions as time goes on. You would have the potential switch much faster and the charges sloshing back and forth like a bowl of water does.

Resonance and harmonics are just how many times does the circuit get to tap the charges to flow in that direction. Tapping or pushing a swing multiple times would have the target receive multiple equal pushes in the same direction or enhancing inertia of the flow since it is going in the same direction until at some point you would need to add substantially more taps to reach the next resonance or harmonic.

The funny thing is that once I figured out that the dielectric and the charge components operate in a two fold method it showed me that we are adding more dielectric to our atmosphere and it is adjusting by reducing the radiative event and increasing the reach of our potential to pull way more charges then our planet is capable of letting out. This is a chemical/electrical modification of our space and it will reach a maximum until the matter can not contain the charges anymore. This would be a massive discharge and I believe we have had them before but on a much smaller scale. We are the reason for the increase. We are also the reason this hasn't been discovered earlier or buried when discovered.

I believe our ancient ancestors knew way more then we think we know now. They actually went a different route in energy. They knew about the fundamental energy that runs this all. They experienced something earth shattering and it had nothing to do with a meteor. It had more to do with not having the wisdom to handle such great power. Although it does look like a few knew something the rest didn't and they tried to correct it by use of the massive Pyramids. If the fundamental matter or dielectric component they saw and built to control our planets internal charge is true then we have the answer. We just need to stop arguing about the semantics and get to how it operates so that we can save ourselves.

We all to many times say that just because I lifted a ball 5 feet and let it go that I am responsible for the ball falling. In effect owning the whole system when you have zero input to it other then lifting the ball. It does not change the fact that the system you used to raise the ball has anything to do with the same system it falls into to make it fall. Now if one tried to put a device there to harness the fall it would stop the ball from falling or at the least slow it down and then one would need to pay more to raise it again. So the example you showed is a trick question, a play on the observer because they don't know the current whole system you are planning to utilize. This is no more then a Magic trick and then you go Walla cop>1 when you have little idea about what the system you are dropping the ball into. Now if one looked at the Tesla method of extracting energy from an already established flow that in fact is totally free because it does little to disturb that flow or change how that flow is made. I would agree that intercepting the flow of a potential already there is a cop>1 but only if one could have the output. If there is no output the only benefit to that cop anything is the environment or system you use.

Lets change the system parameters and see if you idea nets anything useful. We are now in space. That same system you say is cop>1 is now rendered useless. It's cop is (<=0) It would still cause you to put energy in not matter how little to raise the ball to any reference point 5 feet from the start. But when the release happens you have nothing as a result. It would stay still. So that means that it is all dependent on that system you choose to let it enter into. You can not take responsibility for the environments contribution because you do nothing to make that environment work. So if the ball bounces one twice or twenty times you have nothing to do with that results because you disconnect from that object and have no way to harvest the energy to compare to your input. In effect you are establishing a cop for something that is beyond your reach. You are using or trying to use a term that was only put there to describe a device (heat exchanger) because it violated normal rules through the use of a super conducting liquid or method there of. If one was to do that one would need to know everything about the system you dropped the ball into. And I mean all the losses and associated costs of that system. Don't get frustrated man has tried to own everything they came along. I caused that or lifted that and now it is because of my input that I should claim responsibility for the outcome. even when i disconnect from the object. It doesn't work like that Aaron. And this is why we sit here rehashing old confrontations and going down the same road relentlessly. You haven't discovered anything new. Just used a term out of context and is trying to push that idea instead of the truth. The truth is ac and all it's forms is very very inefficient when used in the traditional sense. When used properly it can only be cop 1 at max. We are trying to compare the old way with the new and failed to adjust the scale at which we measure.

A charge is only capable of moving a certain distance based on it's density and connections to the surrounding network. Those connections are also based on it's density and the density of available dielectric connectors or medium which it is in between two distinct positions with both positions being charges that are unequal. Any deviation between the two charges determines the direction of flow of each charge. with the larger having more staying power and pulls the lower density charge twords it. When the charges are equal they pull together equally.

[Jbignes5]

This also explains...

When we energize or give a wire a potential that is way more then the matter can take it pulls more dielectric conductors inside of it and it will literally push the matter apart to accommodate the inrush of dielectric conductors. You know explode the wire. Tesla said that thin wires exploded with the force of dynamite when subjected to ultra high voltages of the impulse nature and a shock wave is felt that penetrates all matter. This is where he learned that those impulses are composed of smaller then our traditional matter and can influence matter to a degree when the dielectric grabs charges away from the epicenter while radiating outwards. Literally blowing the matter into the smallest components if the mass is insufficient to handle the interruption of it's hold on itself.

Not only does this action focus the dielectric component it squeezes the material to the utmost point or planks distance. Then a rebound occurs and the matter is literally falls apart but with the added bonus of the charges all being uniform now. What happens when you have two like poles of a magnet together and suddenly let go? Tesla knew this was the way to generate pure clean energy but the method needed to be refined and that is exactly what he did.

It's funny too because he didn't let the cat out of the bag either once it was laughed at. He hid it in all of his writings as he discovered it and as he refined it his visions grew of the terrible potential they opened up to. Man was no more ready for the truth then he was to release this unto the universe. They actually accused him of using magic and this was the signal that man wasn't capable of hold onto such power. His saying was what? Mine is the future. When we finally put down the almighty dollar and listen to nature, to live our lives helping one another to understand where we live and how to best take care of that home.

[Jbignes5]

Ok back on track...

I think I may have found out how Tesla directed the charges away from the pull of the source.

Check out the diode tube in this wiki. It says it controls the current flow through electrostatic control.

Vacuum tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments?

[Aaron]

no conservation of energy

Radiative events are in fact a conversion of the potential into real movement. It is a cause and effect loop that is governed by the transporters themselves. If that wasn't the case then everything would wind down because all that potential has no way to be realized or made real.

Remember that energy can never be created nor destroyed only changed from one form to another. That is a given i would hope.

We all to many times say that just because I lifted a ball 5 feet and let it go that I am responsible for the ball falling.

Your explanation mixes apples and oranges.

And everything would "wind down" if there was the transformation you
talk about because it does not allow for extra external input into the
system. It sustains for the fact that the potential differences are
constantly being re-established over and over on each cycle. The
"transformation" of the SAME energy from one form to another leads to
non stop dissipation without allowing the system to "re-gauge" itself to
to speak.

If you lift the ball 5 feet in the air, it is claimed that you are storing
potential in the ball and when you let go of the ball, you only get out
what you store in it.

If you lift a 40 gram ball for example to 1 meter, it requires 0.392 joules
to lift it to that height. And according to conventional wisdwom, you can
only get out of the system what you put in.

However, if the ball hits the ground and bounces up to 83 cm (83% of
the 1 meter), it required 0.325 joules to lift that same ball to 83% of the
height, which is 83% of the initial joules required to lift it to 1 meter.

On the second bounce, if it goes 83% of the 83cm, it will rise to 69 cm.
It requires 0.270 joules to lift it to 69 cm.

The first bounce of the ball required 0.325 joules to get it to 83cm.
The 2nd bounce of the ball required 0.270 joules to get it to 69cm.
The total joules of measurable actual lifting work done on the 1st and 2nd
bounce is 0.595 joules.

It only required 0.392 to lift it initially to the 1 meter yet 0.595 joules
of work were done on the 2nd and third bounce.

When they say you get out what you put in - you get out x amount based
on the potential you store in to the system. Well, it's bogus.
What you get out of your own input of 0.392 joules of work to lift it to
a meter IS THE ACTUAL LIFTING OF THE BALL ITSELF. And at that point,
all your input is GONE - dissipated - back into the vacuum.

You established a NEW potential difference (height) where NEW potential
(gravitational potential) enters the system, the the positive polarity of the
vaccum flux as it moves in the direction of the center of the Earth's mass,
pushes on the proton of the mass of the ball pushing it down to the
surface, there is a very small loss in air resistance - since it is only
1 meter and there is 17% loss in impact/heat/friction/etc... and the ball
is able to "regauge" itself to 83% of the original height meaning it is 83%
efficient. That lift did NOT come from any of the original potential we put
in - what we put in is GONE - it is NEW potential that enters.

There was NO transformation or changing of that original energy into
a new form - what we put in is GONE - dissipated throughout the lifting
of the ball itself. Anything that happens afterward is all FREE WORK
from the gravitational potential input into the system.

Now if you or anyone else feels the need to use the word transformation
because of being attached to it in one way or
another, the only transformation the ball goes through in relationship with
the gravitational potential is that a new DIPOLE or height is established
over and over.

But don't tell me the energy (which isn't even a thing it is an adjective
to describe potential moving from one potential difference to another while
having losses along the way) - the energy itself is not undergoing a
change from one form to another.

You lift the ball, the potential that is input undergoes losses in the amount
of 0.392 joules to get it to 1 meter. The WORK required to lift it is only
a measurement of how much loss the potential will encounter during that
1 meter lift. LOSS IS THE WORK.

You do NOT get to keep or store any of the LOSS or WORK that was
done to lift it to a meter. The work is the energy. When lifting the ball,
the mass of the ball resists the downward push of the positive charge of
the aether or gravitational potential. Each point of impact on the mass
of the atoms that make up the ball is a point of dissipation between
our lift and the downward push of gravity.

So again, what we get directly out of what we put in IS the lifting of
the ball in and of itself with nothing stored in the ball at 1 meter. Only a
potential difference is established.

If the math says that 0.392 joules is required to lift 40 grams to a meter,
and if we get ANYTHING back, it didn't really require 0.392 joules to
lift it to a meter then did it? The math is accurate as far as predicting
how much LOSS an object will encounter of a certain weight up against
gravity to a certain height. That is all the math will tell you is how much
LOSS is encountered while lifting the object. LOSS is dissipated potential
that goes right back to the vacuum, period. Anything that comes into the
system after is not a changing of form of that original loss or energy -
it is completely NEW. There is no transforming that energy from one
form to another.

It is open to external input (gravity) and is allowed to asymmetrically
re-establish a new potential difference with small losses along the way
but the work done on the 2nd and third bounce alone is 1.5 times
the work that was required to lift it to begin with.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree and let it be that.

I'll leave you with this quote from Eric Dollard:

"There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energy. It must be just as illegal to destroy energy as it is to create it – don’t you think? E is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency – this is: The Great White Lie…" - Eric Dollard

------------

You may be right and Eric Dollard may be wrong, but my money is on
Eric Dollard and others that have a clear insight into how invalid
conservation of energy is.

[Aromaz]

Radiant Energy

It is because of these unclear issues and all (Most) theories that I embarked on a search mission that spans 32 months now.

There is but one possible definition of Radiant Energy. It is all energy that is radiated from almost every possible matter inthe universe. Such we know as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Cosmic and a myrad of others. Now the question comes how to tap into this source!

Next is the issue of why things are operating, why atoms and molecules even exist; and howcome they are 'overunity' because they always spin/move/radiate? This is where the 'magic' of light comes in. Oh question again - What is Light? Light and Photons are not the same.

If you get that answer, then so many possibilities becomes very realistic, potential and wonderful. Like howcome Black holes even exist? How can they operate? The whole concept of gravity pull into a black hole is a big ball of bull.

Black holes are a point of neutralization. That is a space point where polarity/magnetism is neutralized. I still seek the answer in my dreams of "Which is the cause and which is the result between Polarity and Magentism."

Black holes are the biggest thorn in the side of those who underwrite concervation of energy! It criples the whole theory, therfore we are free to continue looking for 'OverUnity'

[lamare]

I'll leave you with this quote from Eric Dollard:

"There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energy. It must be just as illegal to destroy energy as it is to create it – don’t you think? E is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency – this is: The Great White Lie…" - Eric Dollard

------------

You may be right and Eric Dollard may be wrong, but my money is on
Eric Dollard and others that have a clear insight into how invalid
conservation of energy is.

For those interested, this is where you can find this quote:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post90090

Further, I have uploaded everything I could my hands on about Eric Dollard to my website: Bestandsoverzicht van /pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/


Let me add that the fact that units exist that produce electric energy seemingly out of nothing does not mean that the law of conservation of energy does not hold. It may just as well mean that you just haven't identified the real source of your energy. For the time being, I am pretty confident the law of conservation of energy is valid, which could mean that Eric missed what Turtur has calculated and that is that the electric field continously exchanges energy with the vacuum. I do agree that there is no matter - energy equivalent. Matter is nothing but an electromagnetic wave and gravity is nothing but an electrostatic phenomenon. All the energy resides in the ether, in the shape of the electric and magnetic fields.

Let me also add that given the posts in this thread that suggest that we are probably dealing with a fractal-like reality, we should be able to consider every level of reality according to the same laws of physics. The ether is the same kind of thing as matter is, which happens to have fluid like characteristiscs in this part of the universe. Now if the law of conservation holds on the level of galaxies, planets down to normal mechanics and chemistry, then if we are dealing with a fractal like reality, it should also hold on the small scales. I just don't see why wave phenomena at macro scale should behave differently then on ether scale.

Now that does not mean I am not open for arguments, but so far, I am not convinced at all the law of conservation of energy is flawed. You just have to make sure you identify *all* energy flows at hand.

[lamare]

And everything would "wind down" if there was the transformation you
talk about because it does not allow for extra external input into the
system. It sustains for the fact that the potential differences are
constantly being re-established over and over on each cycle. The
"transformation" of the SAME energy from one form to another leads to
non stop dissipation without allowing the system to "re-gauge" itself to
to speak.

If you lift the ball 5 feet in the air, it is claimed that you are storing
potential in the ball and when you let go of the ball, you only get out
what you store in it.

If you lift a 40 gram ball for example to 1 meter, it requires 0.392 joules
to lift it to that height. And according to conventional wisdwom, you can
only get out of the system what you put in.

However, if the ball hits the ground and bounces up to 83 cm (83% of
the 1 meter), it required 0.325 joules to lift that same ball to 83% of the
height, which is 83% of the initial joules required to lift it to 1 meter.

On the second bounce, if it goes 83% of the 83cm, it will rise to 69 cm.
It requires 0.270 joules to lift it to 69 cm.

The first bounce of the ball required 0.325 joules to get it to 83cm.
The 2nd bounce of the ball required 0.270 joules to get it to 69cm.
The total joules of measurable actual lifting work done on the 1st and 2nd
bounce is 0.595 joules.

It only required 0.392 to lift it initially to the 1 meter yet 0.595 joules
of work were done on the 2nd and third bounce.

When they say you get out what you put in - you get out x amount based
on the potential you store in to the system. Well, it's bogus.
What you get out of your own input of 0.392 joules of work to lift it to
a meter IS THE ACTUAL LIFTING OF THE BALL ITSELF. And at that point,
all your input is GONE - dissipated - back into the vacuum.

IMHO, what you miss here is the realisation that gravity is exactly the same as the electric field. It is a standing electrostatic wave, just like the ones you see in the cymatic experiment.

IT IS DYNAMIC, IT FLOWS!!!

And you have to account for that energy flow. It is like the wind blowing along the sail of a boat. When you move the boat against the wind, you have to press against the pressure created by the wind on your sail. But do you store potential energy in the boat by doing that?

So, what is the difference between lifting a ball and moving a sailboat against the wind?

Nothing, really....

So, what is potential energy?
Nothing but a simplification of the energy exchange between an object and a flowing energy source. A simplification that gives nice results, as long as you stay within the limits of the simplification.

But don't tell me the energy (which isn't even a thing it is an adjective to describe potential moving from one potential difference to another while having losses along the way) - the energy itself is not undergoing a change from one form to another.

In one way, it does. It changes from flowing ether, electrostatic energy, into the movement of the ball, kinetic energy.
In another, it doesn't, cause the ball is matter, which is nothing but localized electromagnetic waves on a pile, which is nothing but flowing ether. So, the flowing energy contained in the "external" ether (with respect to the ball) is transferred into the a change of the movements of the "internal" ether of which the ball consists.

[lamare]

Hi all,

I posted a little comment on Royal Dutch Shell plc.com :

Shell CEO: Nat Gas To Play Prominent Global Energy Role – Royal Dutch Shell plc .com

I think these guys may be in for a little surprise about what will be the energy source of the future. It won’t be a fossil fuel. It will be the electric field, available for free all across the universe.

Let me first mention that I hold a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering. I never believed any claims that there would be such thing as “free energy”. Energy that is basically free for the taking for virtually nuts. Sure, you have solar energy, but solar panels are that expensive to make that they are not interesting from an economic point of view.

But, curious as I am, I did investigate some of the systems that claimed to produce energy out of seemingly nothing. What I found out is that when you look at the dirty details of what we know as electricity, it is the electric field that really powers our circuits. While it seems like we convert mechanical energy into electrical energy by turning the shaft of a generator, in reality it is the electric field that powers our circuits.

Each and every charge carrier in the universe emits an electric field for free, 4/7, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, indefinately. And that electric field contains energy, as has been shown without a shadow of a doubt by the German Prof. Claus Turtur:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf

In the chapter “A circulation of energy of the electrostatic field” (pages 10-14) he makes a straightforward calculation of the energy density of the static electric field surrounding a point charge using nothing more than Coulombs law and the known propagation speed of the electric field, the speed of light, and shows that there must be some kind of energy circulation between the vacuum and charge carriers, which eventually leads to the conclusion that the electric field is a wonderful and free energy source. And that means it it not a question of if but how to use this energy source to give us as much clean, non polluting energy as we like, for free.

So, with this knowledge I investigated three independent inventions that claimed to be able to power cars seemingly out of nothing. And to my own surprise they all turned out the use the same basic principle, a principle that can be explained from the bottom up without any difficulty using nothing but hard electrical engineering theory.

So, there we are. We know the electric field is an clean energy source that is free for the taking and we know how three independent inventions, of which two have been shown to work in public, used this energy source using the exact same set of tricks. So, it is only a matter of time now before all the oil companies will be out of business and fossil fuel will be a thing of the past.

If you are interested, you can read all about how to pull this off, in principle, over here:
Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

I must stress that this is a work in progress, but the basic stuff is there for everyone to see, for free. No strings attached.

May become interesting:
royaldutchshellplc.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

royaldutchshellplc.com is a Royal Dutch Shell gripe site and blog operated by Alfred and John Donovan, who engaged in several marketing campaigns with Shell during the 1980s and early 1990s. The father and son duo believe Shell violated intellectual property agreements and filed several law suits against Shell prior to starting several websites critical of Shell, including royaldutchshellplc.com. The site has been oft quoted in news sources and is known for its activities as an Internet leak and forum for Shell whistleblowers.

Update:

Zoinks! - I'm now at the front page:
Royal Dutch Shell plc .com
Energy source of the future won’t be a fossil fuel – Royal Dutch Shell plc .com

"IS THIS A HOAX?" they ask.
No, it is not.

[Jbignes5]

I refuse to get into this argument..

You know I spent a better part of a week trying to help Aaron understand the concept. Although I was quite young in my quest to figure this natural phenomina out I lacked the full understanding to argue about that poor example. Aaron truly believes that what is our electricity is the same method or composition or process that goes on in nature. It is not the same process and the energy is quite different. It is the unseen process of the electrical that we know and the seen process that happens without plugs in nature.

Take for instance gravity. It does not operate on electricity but somehow we think everything does. The measurements in gravities situation do not convert well to the energy formula's that we have come to understand in our invention of electricity. The concept that bodies in space can have a dual measurement of both the electrical and this unseen cause and effect is most confusing to most who try. They mix terms from one into the other and then when it doesn't compute they modify those terms to fit the example so that it makes sense to them without having to change the methods they currently understand. This is a translation error because they do not see this process and then can not understand the outcome. Instead of trying to understand they do not look at all the examples around them and say we must start over when it does not conform to our current understanding and push their ideas over and over again to somehow show people that what they wrote fits in this context. I assure you they do not. I am sorry that Aaron has wrote in stone his thoughts (e-book) but just because you did does not make it right. Just looking at the natural I know this is wrong.

Again I will refer to Tesla: "What I strove for seemed unattainable, but a kind fate favored me and a few inspired experiments lifted the veil. It was a revelation wonderful and incredible explaining many mysteries of nature and disclosing as in a lightening flash the illusionary character of some modem theories incidentally also bearing out the universal truth of the above axiom."

"In his experiments he dwells first on some phenomena produced by electrostatic force, which he considers in the light of modern theories to be the most important force in nature for us to investigate. At the very outset he shows a strikingly novel experiment illustrating the effect of a rapidly varying electrostatic force in a gaseous medium, by touching with one hand one of the terminals of a 200,000 volt transformer and bringing then other hand to the opposite terminal. The powerful streamers which issued from his hand and astonished his audiences formed a capital illustration of some of the views advanced, and afforded Mr. Tesla an opportunity of pointing out the true reasons why, with these currents, such an amount of energy can be passed through the body with impunity. He then showed by experiment the difference between a steady and a rapidly varying force upon the dielectric. This difference is most strikingly illustrated in the experiment in which a bulb attached to the end of a wire in connection with one of the terminals of the transformer is ruptured, although all extraneous bodies are remote from the bulb. He next illustrates how mechanical motions are produced by a varying electrostatic force acting through a gaseous medium. The importance of the action of the air is particularly illustrated by an interesting experiment."

These were written from lab notes of actual experiments. Why are we going down the same road when it has been done for us. We have the direction, it was given to us. All we need to do is do the same thing and listen, watch and record the results. If one looked at the all of the experiments of Dollard or who ever one can see that these were already done and a basic explanation of the cause and effects were already suggested by a man that lived over 100 years ago. Again it has been done, the ground work has been laid and yet we cling to later descriptions of a system created by the same man and later discounted as being most unnatural when he realized that it isn't how nature operates.

I'll give you the link to all of Tesla's writings for reference. It's not a complete account but I have found it a most enlightening read.

Selected Tesla Writings -- Table of Contents

I can't wait to get access to the undisclosed writings that are now in his museum. What a treasure....

[Slovenia]

Eric Dollard Document Collection

Hi Lamare,

Thanks for sharing your wonderful Eric Dollard document collection. There are some fantastic entries there and it's all in one place.

Best Regards,
Slovenia

[Aaron]

gravity and electrostatics

gravity is exactly the same as the electric field. It is a standing electrostatic wave, just like the ones you see in the cymatic experiment.

IT IS DYNAMIC, IT FLOWS!!!

And you have to account for that energy flow. It is like the wind blowing along the sail of a boat. When you move the boat against the wind, you have to press against the pressure created by the wind on your sail. But do you store potential energy in the boat by doing that?

So, what is the difference between lifting a ball and moving a sailboat against the wind?

Nothing, really....

So, what is potential energy?
Nothing but a simplification of the energy exchange between an object and a flowing energy source. A simplification that gives nice results, as long as you stay within the limits of the simplification.

Lamare,

Gravity is a "standing electrostatic wave?"

Yes, gravity sure is dynamic but gravity is not in itself electrostatic
even though electrostatics can increase or decrease the effect of
gravity.

The gravitational potential itself is the same "substance" that an electric
field is made of and is the same stuff that a magnetic field is made of.
But gravity isn't electrostatic itself any more that it is magnetic.

When you create an electrostatic potential, you're just having a "static"
potential at the terminals of a dipole completely open - that isn't a "wave".

For example, when
I was doing one test at Peter's it was an attempted replication of
Tay Hee Han's water cell, which splits water by using a high voltage
electrostatic field just sitting there without current flowing. I applied
enough super corona dope to the cell's plates to act as a strong enough
dielectric to restrict about 80,000 volts. Therefore, I can build up the
electrostatic potential at both plates, which had about a 0.5mm gap
and there was 100% current restriction. No spark, nothing, just a sitting
high voltage electrostatic field.

That "field" is composed of vacuum potential which has had its symmetry
broken and had it positive and negative charges separated and polarized,
which then move to their respective terminals at the high voltage side
of the ignition coil.

The gravitational potential is that same vacuum potential, which has been
displaced by the mass of the planet and it is rebounding back to where
it was displaced pushing down on the mass it encounters on the way.
That vacuum potential IS dynamic, yes, and IS flowing, yes, but it is not
an electro"static" standing "wave" itself.

That is like saying scalar wave, which is an oxymoron but it is common
enough that people understand what is being conveyed.

An electrostatic field is made up of the vacuum potential just as the
gravitational potential is the vacuum potential, which is the same stuff
that makes up the magnetic field of a magnet.

Now an electrostatic field for a fact can reduce the downward push of
the gravitational potential. If you apply a very high voltage + to the
top of an aluminum shell, the shell will rise against gravity. This is
because the high voltage positive which is made up of polarized and
concentrated positive charges from the vacuum to begin with and these
repel the downward moving positive charges of the gravitational potential
deflecting them AROUND the shell of the shell instead of letting them
push down on the mass that makes up the shell meaning there is less
push on the mass of the shell meaning it will weight less and will
reduce weight or lift in the direction of the + on the shell.

The effect is two fold. The deflected aether around the shell plus the
atomic matrix of the material of non-ferrous metals can polarize to give
less restrictive channels through the material for aether to flow. But that
is another topic and can be done with microwaves as well.

When you say this:

"So, what is potential energy?
Nothing but a simplification of the energy exchange between an object and a flowing energy source."

Potential energy means the potential for energy to be exhibited, which
is work but is not work in and of itself. Work has not been accomplished
yet.

When there is that "energy exchange", it is the object encountering
resistance to the gravitational potential for example and that is work
and that is loss or dissipation. But during the activity of working by
producing losses and dissipation, it is no longer potential energy but
energy. We can point at it and say the potential is now being energetic
but is no longer potential (at the points of dissipation).

Energy/loss/dissipation/resistance = source charge becomes disordered

It is either in a state of potential (non work) or it is in a state of energy,
which is the potential meeting a resistance but it is not and cannot be
both "potential energy" it is a contradiction. It is a contradiction if using
it to describe the work part of the process but you can say "potential
energy" to describe energy that has not manifested yet.

So if there is no interaction that happened yet, it can be potential energy
or a potential for energy to exist. But when there is interaction between
potential and a mass and there is resistance, you can say there is energy
being exhibited - it is no longer potential at that point, it is actual work
in and of itself.

The wind hitting the sail is Tom Bearden's analogy and goes to show
that the ENTIRE flow is the Heaviside flow of vacuum potential flowing
over the wire. And what is known as the Poynting flow is only the part
that hits the sail.

The Poynting flow is taught as being all the potential
there is even though it is a very small speck in a cross section of time
and they call that all the potential. When in reality, the Heaviside flow
is like the wind, which is really all the potential flowing over a wire
even though 1/11 trillionths or so is what gets attracted to the electrons
into the wire pulling the electrons out of orbit causing them to do their
couple inches per hour jiggle dance towards the positive terminal.

The textbooks claim that the only potential there is - is that small
sliver of the Heaviside flow while pretending that all the rest of the flow
is insignificant just because it isn't being put to use. It isn't being used
so lets stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist - that
is the logic used by conventional academics and is evidenced by the
pure unadulterated junk in the textbooks.

So, the Heaviside flow is all the wind and the Poynting flow is that
small sliver that happens to be hitting the sail.

Now if you're moving against the wind in a boat, there is dissipation, but
thankfully, the wind may keep blowing regardless of how much your
sail is being put to work.

My only experience with a sail on the water is windsurfing once in
Half Moon Bay in Montego Bay, Jamaica - BEAUTIFUL! So, I'm an absolute
novice with a sail and the wind - however, I get the common sense
concept of how to propel forward against the wind so forgive the following
description since I have none of the sailing jargon.

When you power the sail with your input by moving it appropriately in
relation to the wind, that wind is free for sure, no question about it,
but at end, I was WORE out! That means I was NOT getting a free
ride.

If we drifted with the wind, we're using
"free energy" from nature. But if we're moving against it direct or at
whatever angle, it is anything but free! It is a direct resistance to
the work we intend to accomplish and there is no potential difference
that is repeatedly being established.

IF you could initially turn the sail so that you start to go and then you
could let go and the pressure against the sail could somehow feed a
mechanism that would constantly and FREELY regauge itself or turn the
sail back and forth a bit in a rhythm to pick up speed and drop and
pick up speed and drop all by itself because it is intrinsic in the design,
then I would agree with you that it is the same as the bouncing ball
analogy but until then, it is completely different.

The boat wouldn't have to do it nonstop all by itself in order to qualify
as using the wind to propel an object against itself. If you put in certain
work and got it going to max speed you let go and from that point,
the sail was adjusted back and forth but each time it dwindled down,
that is fine, because you're getting more work in movement of the boat
than what you contributed and that would be a true non-equilibrium
system that can regauge itself or reset it's own potential difference at
any given moment.

Now if a ball fell without ever hitting the ground, that would be like wind
hitting a sail where the boat drifts with the wind.

I haven't thought much about it before, but it is only a matter of creativity
to have some kind of Velijko type mechanism connected to a sailing
structure to accomplish just this. Yes, it still requires some periodic
input but is over 1.0 cop.

[Aaron]

@jbignes

You know I spent a better part of a week trying to help Aaron understand the concept. Although I was quite young in my quest to figure this natural phenomina out I lacked the full understanding to argue about that poor example. Aaron truly believes that what is our electricity is the same method or composition or process that goes on in nature. It is not the same process and the energy is quite different. It is the unseen process of the electrical that we know and the seen process that happens without plugs in nature.

Take for instance gravity. It does not operate on electricity but somehow we think everything does. The measurements in gravities situation do not convert well to the energy formula's that we have come to understand in our invention of electricity. The concept that bodies in space can have a dual measurement of both the electrical and this unseen cause and effect is most confusing to most who try. They mix terms from one into the other and then when it doesn't compute they modify those terms to fit the example so that it makes sense to them without having to change the methods they currently understand. This is a translation error because they do not see this process and then can not understand the outcome. Instead of trying to understand they do not look at all the examples around them and say we must start over when it does not conform to our current understanding and push their ideas over and over again to somehow show people that what they wrote fits in this context. I assure you they do not. I am sorry that Aaron has wrote in stone his thoughts (e-book) but just because you did does not make it right. Just looking at the natural I know this is wrong.

If you want to state your case, state it for or against any of the points
that anyone is posting. But don't pretend that you have anything to
teach me when you use a lot of words but say nothing!

I don't need your help and I never asked for your help thank you very
much and if I ever do, I'll ask you for it. I don't need or appreciate your
condescending snide remarks and your holier than thou attitude.

STATE YOUR CASE but leave me out of it!

For example, when I post to Lamare, who actually does describe things,
I argue his points but I leave him out of it. Use your common sense
and decency to do the same.