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

[Farrah Day]

Hi Lamare

If we assume that any and every dipole is a source of untold energy flowing in and out of the dipole source from the aether, how then do we use this energy given that you state that we cannot interfere with - or disturb it?

If I'm understanding this correctly, it is case of getting the field produced by the dipole to influence a remote system into doing work. And if we can do this while maintaining (and without depleting) the source dipole, then - from our perspective at least - we are effectively getting something for nothing.

But am I also to understand that the source dipole must remain static... ie, no pulsing allowed?

[lamare]

Hi Lamare

If we assume that any and every dipole is a source of untold energy flowing in and out of the dipole source from the aether, how then do we use this energy given that you state that we cannot interfere with - or disturb it?

If I'm understanding this correctly, it is case of getting the field produced by the dipole to influence a remote system into doing work. And if we can do this while maintaining (and without depleting) the source dipole, then - from our perspective at least - we are effectively getting something for nothing.

But am I also to understand that the source dipole must remain static... ie, no pulsing allowed?

I did try to explain this in my article:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

So, where does all this leave us? We can spend the effort of turning the shaft of a generator, which will separate the charges in the system we want to power and creates a dipole. When we do this, we do not actually store energy in the dipole, we change the configuration of the electric field. When we subsequently send those same charges trough the system we want to power, it is the active vacuum, the environment, which is kind enough to provide us with the energy that is needed to kill the dipole we have created to be able to power our load and with the energy to actually power our load as well. As we have seen, this is an exercise with a closed wallet from our point of view. The load receives the exact same amount of energy that we have put in the system ourselves as mechanical energy, apart from the losses. So, all things considered, the Newtionian analogy we use in electrical engineering is perfectly valid and applicable. Except for one tiny little detail.

We change the configuration of the electric field when we operate an electrical circuit and since we eventually get the same amount of energy back trough our load while doing this, this means we can actually manipulate the electric field for free, just by powering our circuits the way we always do. Get the point? While we are opening and closing our fandoor, we influence the airflow in our neighbourhood without having to pay a dime for that in terms of energy!

Take a look at this simple oscillator:

In this circuit, the charge is continously flipped back between the coil and the capacitors. Meanwhile, the voltage across the coil varies, which gives you an electric field which extends beyond the circuit itself. So, this is a dynamic dipole emitting electric energy all the time in the form of a varying electric field. Of course, there are also losses (electro-magnetic radiation and heat, for example) and for these you have to pay. And that is what you have to put into this circuit trough the transistor.

So, we have our dipole across the coil. If we can find a way to use the voltage over there without drawing any current, we're in business. One way to do that is to connect one terminal of a second coil to the coil, such that the resonance frequency of our oscillator matches to a higher order resonance frequency of this second coil.

You see, with the normal quarter wave resonance, you get high voltage, zero current at one terminal but high current, low voltage at the other terminal. So, if you double that frequency, you get high voltage, zero current at both terminals. And this is what is being done in the SEC exciter circuits:

Now there's a bit more to say on these exciter circuits, but this is the basis. What happens in these circuits, is that the transistor is steered such that it is either "on" or "off", so you get a very high bandwith. It switches very fast, so you actually get a summation of multiple resonance waves in there, all resonating at a multiple of the natural resonance frequency of the coil, in this case L1.

It is clear that this way, you get quite a bit of energy available at the coil. Enough to light a fluorescent tube fom a battery....


From this base, we can continue. For example, we can make coil L1 longer and longer, without us having to feed more current into the system, because of the way the electric energy propagates trough the coil. The coil acts as a LMD (Longitudinal Magneto-Dielectric) transmission line as well as a normal TEM (Transverse ElectroMagnetic) transmission line:

The L.M.D./T.E.M.Test

The difference between the two is the magnetic component, which is more or less akin to the current going trough the coil. The higher the frequency you use, the more the coil acts like a longitudinal transmission line and the more electric energy you can pull out of the environment. See Naudin....


So, resonating coils in series is relatively easy to do, as long as you match the coils. If you want to go beyond that, you have to make sure you only use the field without drawing current. And so you need some more tricks, one of which would be the use of a rectified carrier wave, preferably in combination with a high pass filter.

[Jbignes5]

Hi Lamare

If we assume that any and every dipole is a source of untold energy flowing in and out of the dipole source from the aether, how then do we use this energy given that you state that we cannot interfere with - or disturb it?

If I'm understanding this correctly, it is case of getting the field produced by the dipole to influence a remote system into doing work. And if we can do this while maintaining (and without depleting) the source dipole, then - from our perspective at least - we are effectively getting something for nothing.

But am I also to understand that the source dipole must remain static... ie, no pulsing allowed?

Not a source but a connection to the pressure of space. Much like the back emf we see when pulsing a coil. In itself the back pulse is the motivator rushing back into the coil and because it is going inward (generative,multiplying) it appears to be extremely high voltage or pressure. Pulsing can be a great way to get a maintaining static pressure to use as a virtual pump of the charge carriers. This process is not new and it is exactly what Tesla used eventually in the unsubstantiated but credible report of the Pierce arrow experiment.

All Mr. Tesla did was create a pulsing source to charge a layden jar. Then through the use of a new transformer and possibly another layden jar used that potential to attract a flow of the charge carriers twords that source. Once the attraction happens he quickly switched the flow through the load and out the exit of his circuit for the flow of charges. It seems to me that if this electrical event that happens has flow to it one could create a wake and ride(load) it for a bit.

Seeing that Mr. Bedini almost did the same thing although the methode was quite different. The wakes that Bedini used were actually setup in the flow of the batteries and a liquid was used to to facilitate inertia on a higher degree or a super flow. Everyone has seen the water is bent by static charge as the water flows from a faucet right? Same premise....

Dr. Stiffler did the same thing with a diode and water with a virtual connection to the diode by banding outside of the water. This had a two fold effect. One is that you get a higher voltage or pressure when you focus into a single point. Surface area does that alone. The second thing is that a flow will be created from the inducing portion of the diode (banded from the outside) through the water dragging the charges through the water inducing the same process that a battery uses. He creates that flow or imbalance by using a diode with the banding focuser/virtual connection part of the setup. It is in all intensive purposes a pump that has a virtual connection That can separate water by yanking the charges that bind the water away from the solid or physical portion of water. Kinda like yanking the table cloth from under Grandma's best china. If done right with the right timing one could get a instant separation of the medium at the, either flow start or ending, that is very rich in both charges or dielectric conductors. These two tend to compliment each other in the medium of water. It is after all why water phase changes from a fluid to a solid. When the charges leech out of the waters physical portion the only thing left is the real energy(charge) carriers or conductors. This leaves the waters left over structure to be charge deficient and seeking balance. The balance is motivated by the now super rich energy/charge conductors network to retain it's own normal charge via surface capacitance of the static charges on the dielectric conductors.

Why we never looked more into the static portion of the electrical phenomina astounds me. There were so many great men that tried but no one payed any attention to them and we lost out on that one. The men that tried showed empirical results that just got buried or taken back in the case of Tesla.

Everyone is getting confused over this situation because we have our basic understanding of what this invention of ac is and have confused it with what everything else is or operates in the universe. We don't supply current to our devices. What we do is attract real static charges into becoming dynamic flows in our systems. The energy or charges have always been outside of our physical systems. Batteries are just a static pump that can maintain it's attraction through the liquid between the plates. It uses the inertia of the flow to continue to be able to maintain a load. Once the load attains maximum usage of that flow it can not go any further and visa versa. Meaning that it would draw down the sources ability to provide a potential difference and stop the flow. This would be considered a short.

We must rethink our whole understanding of the natural because as Tesla said "AC is most unnatural"! Now why would the inventor do a 360 on one of the most important invention that we can think of today?

Here is what Tesla was thinking.

"The Eternal Source of Energy of the Universe, Origin and Intensity of Cosmic Rays"

[lamare]

We don't supply current to our devices. What we do is attract real static charges into becoming dynamic flows in our systems. The energy or charges have always been outside of our physical systems. Batteries are just a static pump that can maintain it's attraction through the liquid between the plates. It uses the inertia of the flow to continue to be able to maintain a load. Once the load attains maximum usage of that flow it can not go any further and visa versa. Meaning that it would draw down the sources ability to provide a potential difference and stop the flow. This would be considered a short.

We must rethink our whole understanding of the natural because as Tesla said "AC is most unnatural"! Now why would the inventor do a 360 on one of the most important invention that we can think of today?

This is not completely how I understand it. I agree with you that we don't supply current to our devices. But I don't think we normally "attract real static charges" [...] or do anything with charges "outside of our physical systems".

The way I see it is that the flow we are talking about, the static electric field, is a real flow in a real ether. And since the ether is so thin, this flows trough anything (See the chapter "SHOCKING DISCOVERY" over here: Nikola Tesla - The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla - The Man who invented the 20th Century).

So, what I think this flow in this ether does, is push the charge carriers already existing in our circuits around. So, it acts like the wind on a sailboat...

In other words: no charge carriers come in nor leave our circuit. They are just traveling around inside our circuits, pretty much like traditional models describe. The only essential difference between traditional, Newtonian models and my view is that in my view the charge carriers are pushed around by a dynamic, flowing kind of force/energy, while the Newtonian model assumes a static, pressure-like kind of force/energy.

[Jbignes5]

This is not completely how I understand it. I agree with you that we don't supply current to our devices. But I don't think we normally "attract real static charges" [...] or do anything with charges "outside of our physical systems".

The way I see it is that the flow we are talking about, the static electric field, is a real flow in a real ether. And since the ether is so thin, this flows trough anything (See the chapter "SHOCKING DISCOVERY" over here: Nikola Tesla - The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla - The Man who invented the 20th Century).

So, what I think this flow in this ether does, is push the charge carriers already existing in our circuits around. So, it acts like the wind on a sailboat...

In other words: no charge carriers come in nor leave our circuit. They are just traveling around inside our circuits, pretty much like traditional models describe. The only essential difference between traditional, Newtonian models and my view is that in my view the charge carriers are pushed around by a dynamic, flowing kind of force/energy, while the Newtonian model assumes a static, pressure-like kind of force/energy.

If that was the case then all you would need was to make a circuit and let nature take over. That doesn't work. All our provided flows come from the rush of real charges into our systems that are attracted to our circuits solid form or antenna. The conductors are just solid organized networks of trapped conductors of the charges within the conductors bound matter which is neutral and guides the charges twords the attraction source Voltage.
This is also why voltage leads current in such the way it does. The charges take a bit to start movement and movement is acceleration of that charge.

I will refer back to the copper etched disk to show the internal network that charges flow around. Take the picture of the disk and that is one slice of a wire.

Copper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You also assume the charge carriers do the motion of charge in a solid conductor. But by looking at the transition (From solid to liquid to solid again) metal (copper), one can see that as the charges exit the material radiatively, they form a network of the aligned carriers and when this metal has cooled it locks in that network. In the case of a solid the carriers do not move and act much like iron does when exposed to a magnetic field except the field in this case is a bunched group of charges. It is the charges that move and nothing else in matter because the matter has formed around the charge carriers in a static fashion holding them into place. The charges then enter the metal and flow through the metal following the charge carriers network and then subset of additional rules follow the material like resistance to the flow and heating of the material.

In the aether it doesn't conform to part of these rules because the charge carriers are mobile. The only thing that holds spacial charges into a network is the flow itself. once the flow stops it disperses and when the source is then recharged it forms on the fly. This is the fractal nature of it all. A base form that modifies everything that comes from it if the source can be maintained. And this is where the don't destroy the dipole comes in. The dipole is the network that is formed from the sea of separation (dielectric). Once you destroy that connection you have to pay to reestablish that connection again. That is what Bearden was talking about and is proofed by magnets.

[boguslaw]

My idea is that energy flows outside copper but inside flow is interrupted at high rate so it lags and we see energy as difference between external and internal flow.Byproduct is also resistance but I'm not sure yet how it is related.
Interesting is that we can use it only when there is resistance.

[Jbignes5]

My idea is that energy flows outside copper but inside flow is interrupted at high rate so it lags and we see energy as difference between external and internal flow.Byproduct is also resistance but I'm not sure yet how it is related.
Interesting is that we can use it only when there is resistance.

I believe the word "use" is the operative word to look at here. To use any charges means resistance. Charges interact with the conductors matter that has gathered to that particular node network and resistance is always gonna play a role in charges when matter is associated with the network. But it doesn't play with potentials or the aether in general since matter is not effecting the network when it is just a separation of the dielectric medium. So we must change the rules to include not a stationary network but mobile and self organizing based on the geometry of the mediums individual components in relation to the environmental charges position.

Remember that potential or voltage is the pulling force of the charges. As charges collect balancing that pull they block or resist other charges via the balancing mechanism that nature uses. You could say that the underlying network dictates the capabilities of the surrounding matter. The thicker the network the more capability the matter has to attract charges and guide them through the matter.

Lets go through a small example. Lets say we present a potential from a battery to our circuit. The circuit instantly becomes energized with the potential of the battery. The dielectric sea around the circuit forms a network instantly to the surrounding environment allowing for charges to be picked up and pulled into the circuit. This network is fractal based because of the underlying dielectric medium and much resembles corona discharges from a high voltage (extreme) event. This is not the extreme around our circuit so it is relatively small and invisible but this does not mean it is small in the way of pulling charges for use in our circuit. This new virtual network is now rigid in a sense as long as the circuit maintains potential. If we let the charges go through our circuit and into the source it breaks the potential difference down. This is the secret. Don't let the source ever attain a balance and you have an infinity of charges to use through a tap before the source. Shut the source off and then the charges through inertia continue through the tap to load and back out to the environment. A clever bit of trickery is needed to have this happen and I suspect that resonance and impedance play in that. I still have not worked that part out yet but it is very plausible that is the case.

In effect we are separating the positive from the load and only using the drawing to start a flow that we can harvest charges or real force to use in the load. But this is on a delay as evident from the statement that voltage leads current per experimental results.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Posted in the last few days

Well I posted in the last few days about circuits recharging themselves and I can't remember where I posted it but I will explain again, and it works try it.

"IF" you have a circuit that can feed back to the source battery to recharge it, then you need to put in series with that battery, more batteries, to the value of the recharge returning voltage, but still take the drive voltage from the front battery, this way you are using the full voltage of the return and the front battery will not see directly this voltage, as in a loop, but will recharge along with the rest of the batteries. This has been tested and works, I may put a video together to show this happening given a little time which is a bit thin on the ground at the moment

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Forgot to say THIS IS ONLY A COP1

Mike

[Aaron]

what potential is

One of the most important things to realize is that the electric field is the cause for currents to occur. Aaron calls this "potential", but IMHO it is better to call it "the electric field", because that's what it is. The term "potential" suggests we are talking about a static force akin to "pressure" in hydraulics, the Newtonian analogy we basically use in our normal circuit analysis.

There is a significant difference between the static analogy we are used to work with and the actual physical situation. In the actual situation the force we consider to be a static pressure-like force is a dynamic force, it's a flow of energy. To call this flow of energy "potential" is confusing IMHO, because a propagating electric field is just not the same thing as a pressure-like "potential".

I explain this in my article as follows:
Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

Actually, I don't believe in a static potential since it is a very dynamic
flowing aetheric fluid of mass free "charge" of both polarities. And the
use of the term potential literally means that when you have the
voltage potential, there is no work being done until "current" is caused.
Current being nothing more than the loss in a system.

The gravitational potential is a moving potential for example and the
only time work is done is when the positive potential causes a push on the
proton of mass causing a resistance.

The definition of potential and energy are all 100% incorrect in the
textbooks as there is no such thing as a static potential - the textbook
definitions are talking about an abstract concept because they don't
understand what potential even is.

[Aaron]

manifestation of electrons

So, what I think this flow in this ether does, is push the charge carriers already existing in our circuits around. So, it acts like the wind on a sailboat...

Yes but electrons can also manifest right out of the vacuum as do other
"particles" and don't necessarily have to come from the copper or other
materials themselves even though most of the "current" is from the electrons
supplied by the wire. We can wind up with more than we started with.

[Aaron]

electron movement

It is the charges that move and nothing else in matter because the matter has formed around the charge carriers in a static fashion holding them into place.

Not sure if I follow you there but the electrons perform a jiggling
up and down dance down the line at the rate of a few inches per hour
while the heaviside flow is about light speed.

Drude model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Aaron]

schematic

Mike,

Did you post schematics? You mentioned this to me on Skype but I
didn't see it.

[Slovenia]

Schematics

Wow, I'd like to see those schematics too myself!!

Mike,

Did you post schematics? You mentioned this to me on Skype but I
didn't see it.

[HairBear]

Yes but electrons can also manifest right out of the vacuum as do other
"particles" and don't necessarily have to come from the copper or other
materials themselves even though most of the "current" is from the electrons
supplied by the wire. We can wind up with more than we started with.

More of what? Electrons? I don't quite understand your ideology here. Even if electrons could manifest from nowhere, what would be the benefit of more electrons than what we started with? If the original theory is of separating the dipole, does not an electron/s work against that charge separation or "Kill the dipole"?