The solar flashlight & muller/romero

[boguslaw]

That's not resistance that's force, yes resistance is involved, but you pushed it...that's a you-energy waterhose.

How bout a real example ..... not a hypothetical.

reguardless of what we want to believe, all energy adhears to the same laws, at least the evidence would suggest so.

with that in mind, a real world example of resistance increasing potential?

I'm not saying that I KNOW THIS TO BE IMPOSSIBLE, I'm saying that I don't believe it is.

matt?

Force is perpendicular to the hose but it create resistance to the flow inside which drag water around creating more pressure = more potential. Think differently

[142857]

*thinks of the moment when the world catches on to overunity*

And the naysayers are gonna be like...

I thought you were ignoring me?

and so far, there is nothing to "catch on" to.

The day somebody can actually do what so many of these sorcerers think they can do....the world will catch on quick.....er the only reason the world hasn't caught on is that NOBODY has done it.

it'll also be another step in the direction of mutually assured destruction. Much like nuclear power. Too dangerous for the proletariat.
IF you could create energy, infinately with no input, you would be a world power.

Thank god you can't.


I can't wait till the world catches on to my teleportation system too......no, I haven't invented it yet. So...you'll see....it's close, right around the corner.

please

I tried to find a clip....you ever see "blue harvest" ?
Chris (Luke Skywalker): You don't believe in the Force, do you?
Peter (Han Solo): Oh, you mean the thing you just found out about three hours ago and are now judging *me* for not believing in?

[142857]

Force is perpendicular to the hose but it create resistance to the flow inside which drag water around creating more pressure = more potential. Think differently

You mean think wrongly to suite your arguement?

you said you disconnected the flow from the tap. Thus there is no flow in the hose, except what you caused with the force you applied......we know we can raise potential through force.

?

ps...don't mean that to be smart alec....trying to understand what you are saying

[boguslaw]

You mean think wrongly to suite your arguement?

you said you disconnected the flow from the tap. Thus there is no flow in the hose, except what you caused with the force you applied......we know we can raise potential through force.

?

ps...don't mean that to be smart alec....trying to understand what you are saying

You are right. There is force applied and initially it makes flow, but you are not catching what is going on later. I didn't saw Ou device which don't need initial "kick".Think about it.

[142857]

You are right. There is force applied and initially it makes flow, but you are not catching what is going on later. I didn't saw Ou device which don't need initial "kick".Think about it.

You have to explaine a little better, I think you know exactly what you mean, just not making it clear.

if you got a minute try to describe your hose a little clearer to me.
i'm dumb...

[Matthew Jones]

potential can grow through resistance...
hmmn that's sort of a tough one.
lets see,
Lets do a trap door that opens downward like a gallows.
If I raise the door...it has potential to fall.....if i prop a stick under it(resistance) ....potential did not increase
how about a swinging door with a peg for a catch. If I lean on it it has potential to swing open when you pull the peg...does the energy potential increase if you lean on the other side? not eacatly.
Now the peg is the inital resistance...say it takes 40 lbs of force to break the peg. (easier to see the potential that way)
Now increase the strength of the peg till it takes 100lbs to snap it.
I can now lean harder, the door now seemingly has more potential. But that's not really the case is it?
so no, not really.
reguaging is like bedini mysticism.
raising potential via resistance is an illusion.
sry matt, I missed this post before I PM'd you ................. you already made it clear that i was stupid so I guess it's to be expected eh.
and in responce to your PM reply....yes...you did say that your magnetic track could CREATE energy....you do it all the time

@PM
your magnetic track produces energy....but you can't harvest or use it?
so, a tea light candel (candle for those if us who can't spell,edit MJ) is still superior....

I didn't say was use full though did I? But it does what it does. And without upping the anty on your end and coming and seeing the thing, or building one yourself, you are not in the position to do anything but take my word. You have no proof that what you say is the truth. Just literature, Just what they told ya. Not what you have done. The doors open all you have to do is walk through.


So to your above analogy, which I am pressed to understand. I actually had to read it a few times.
What your saying is WE can grow potential through and inductor, IE Voltage booster or a transformer.

But A bridge rectifier (or diode) would not make voltage grow? If you have an AC signal at say 20 volt 1 amp we could reasonably expect that the DC signal on the other side of the bridge would be less? Correct?
Regardless of how we produce the AC it cannot grow through bridge rectifier?

20 volt 1 amp AC cannot go through a bridge rectifier and come out MORE. IE 40 volt .9 amp DC.
Because that would be un-proportional growth in WATTS.

I just wanna get the thinking straight...and keep it simple. Maybe there is an explanation for that behavior. I have never meet an engineer who could explain it but lets see.

Once I get your answer I film a circuit for ya. You can scratch your head, revert to all knowing and call me hoax and then we can keep fighting about something else.

Matt

[142857]

I didn't say was use full though did I? But it does what it does. And without upping the anty on your end and coming and seeing the thing, or building one yourself, you are not in the position to do anything but take my word. You have no proof that what you say is the truth. Just literature, Just what they told ya. Not what you have done. The doors open all you have to do is walk through.


So to your above analogy, which I am pressed to understand. I actually had to read it a few times.
What your saying is WE can grow potential through and inductor, IE Voltage booster or a transformer.

But A bridge rectifier (or diode) would not make voltage grow? If you have an AC signal at say 20 volt 1 amp we could reasonably expect that the DC signal on the other side of the bridge would be less? Correct?
Regardless of how we produce the AC it cannot grow through bridge rectifier?

20 volt 1 amp AC cannot go through a bridge rectifier and come out MORE. IE 40 volt .9 amp DC.
Because that would be un-proportional growth in WATTS.

I just wanna get the thinking straight...and keep it simple. Maybe there is an explanation for that behavior. I have never meet an engineer who could explain it but lets see.

Once I get your answer I film a circuit for ya. You can scratch your head, revert to all knowing and call me hoax and then we can keep fighting about something else.

Matt

you want to keep it simple but you don't understand the trap door?

but you want me to understand your circut....what are you talking about anyway your tesla switch?

I don't understand your circut but I'll bet my life you are not actually MAKING any energy....didn't you tell me like a year ago that big developments were just around the corner with this thing? How much further along is it now?
if your input is AC, that's like using the hose and only considering the tap pressure/flow and disreguarding the volume er continuous flow.

How bout this....what do you have if you transorm your 40v .9a DC back to AC?.....apples and oranges.

If you had read my PM, you would realize that I have built a magnetic track...why would I drive hundreds of miles to see yours....i've done it at least a dozen different ways....you can't make it cycle because it does not CREATE any energy.

Once again.....I said no....that's my answer... NO you cannot increase potential through resistance.
In a circut....like a waterhose you can sacrifice current for potential via resistance. Like a yinyang it all balances out beautifully. So in some instances it would seem to be the case, but again, it's an illusion.

the trap door perfectly explains your question.....just like a rock falling is another version of your magnetic track.

obviously I have offended your beliefs on this matter and in absence of any kind of verifiable proof, you simply choose to label me as some kind of hater, thus justifying your own contempt for me.....but not really for me, just for your lack of answers.

I don't wanna flame anybody, for the record it was you who called me and isolated friendless idiot.

Why would you resort to an emotional response if you had factual evidence to support you case? I'm abrasive maybe, but not unreasonable.

Worst case(if you take part in said conversation) is that one of us could prove the other wrong. That's the worst case, we might each learn somthing instead. I'm a pretty good person to argue with....a good cival argument has alot of merit on the platform of learning.
Since nature and history are on my side, or basically ARE my stance, I might seem to have a slight advantage.

You wanna start a new thread about the track? we can all chime in and rip this idea apart for what it's worth?

[Matthew Jones]

No, no Tesla switch. No circuit I have shared.

I wonder why it is you have to rant and rave and draw in all the subject matter in you can, when it comes time to show you proof, or have rational discussion. Try an experiment.

You can't state your point of view IE "No its not possible", or "I need more detail", or "Maybe there is an answer, lets look".

No rational when some one challenges you with working proof. Just disregard for civil conversation and the utmost praise of your mighty intellect.

I don't care what you have built, you did not build that track, you do not know, and you have no proof. Just literature, and what you have been told. Period.
I do not believe you built any magnetic assembly. Remember that one....?

Your not worth the time and anybody who hasn't seen it by now is as mentally obstructed as you are.

I'll leave your thread alone now. You won't be here long.

Matt

[142857]

No, no Tesla switch. No circuit I have shared.

I wonder why it is you have to rant and rave and draw in all the subject matter in you can, when it comes time to show you proof, or have rational discussion. Try an experiment.

You can't state your point of view IE "No its not possible", or "I need more detail", or "Maybe there is an answer, lets look".

No rational when some one challenges you with working proof. Just disregard for civil conversation and the utmost praise of your mighty intellect.

I don't care what you have built, you did not build that track, you do not know, and you have no proof. Just literature, and what you have been told. Period.
I do not believe you built any magnetic assembly. Remember that one....?

Your not worth the time and anybody who hasn't seen it by now is as mentally obstructed as you are.

I'll leave your thread alone now. You won't be here long.

Matt

You think I'm trying to prove what? all the evidence, all the facts? That you can't MAKE energy? I can't prove that you can't make energy, I can't MAKE it. You can't prove that you can. AND if you could, you wouldn't have to prove it to me anyway....you'd already be famous and we'd all know your name.

but you have a circut that you've never shared, that engineers can't explain. You must have show it to them?

AGAIN
I'm not trying to prove anything...
you are trying to disprove somthing...burden is yours.

Look, there was a time I wanted it to all be true too....it's just not.

and yeah, whatever, your right, i never built anything, i don't know anything but what i've read. That's precicely why I waste time arguing with you. It's so compelling.
Sorry to burst your bubble but there are alot funner places on the internet to argue with people that don't require near the reading or knowledge base. If I was just out for and arguement I'd go to a religious forum and start talking about gay people in church.

You are a free energy zelot you don't need reasons or proofs because you just believe.

[Shadesz]

-0231234 the only thing you are proving is that you are here for an argument. Let's argue over here in this thread then and keep the other one free of useless chatter?

Having said that, can you explain why your arguments just suddenly reversed on us? Seems to me you have some hidden agenda...

[Shadesz]

ok man, now your just saying what I have been saying form the beginning. Thanks for finally getting there. I don't care if you think you are the one that came to the conclusion. I'm just glad you arrived.

I thought I said there was a major dif in CREATING energy from nothing and tapping into the cosmos?

My questions about tapping the foam are legit too.

...

one more time.....a motor that runs off the energy in the aether is no OU.

once you figure out how to tap the aether, you will be able to hook any suitable machine to it......just like.....you guessed it, a solar panel.

This system creating energy? I think not.

"Energy" in this context is electricity. So what is electricity? The flow of electrons. Are the electrons created from nothing?

No...

...

Did you create energy? NO! You simply used energy that was already there and re-routed half of it so the other half could create a current.

What energy was already there? You don't look at a wall as you walk down the hallway and assume there is no energy in that wall do you? All the atoms in that wall are moving. Not just that but their electrons are moving REALLY fast. There is energy holding the individual atoms together into molecules. There is also energy holding the very molecular compounds in that wall together. All that energy just sitting there! There is also the potential anergy that the builder put there when he stood the wall up (doesn't it want to crumble down if allowed?). And most people walk down the hall ignorantly assuming there is no energy there. Oh there is energy. TONS of energy! Potential, thermal, chemical, and atomic/quantum.

Well now take a moment, just one, to align all those molecules in the wall so their inherent energies are not chaotic and are not working against each other and you have a magnet. Now use that magnet to create kinetic and electric energy, but divert half, and what do you have?

A system to extract energy that is already there in the quantum world. You aren't creating energy, just aligning it and converting it from quantum to kinetic, to electrical. Just like a wind generator converts it from thermal(heating air), to kinetic (wind), to kinetic(a spinning rotor) to electrical (electrical current).

From a different angle... ALL energy originates in the atomic/kinetic world.
Gasoline? It came from oil which came from organic matter which came from plants absorbing light which came from hydrogen molecules fusing into helium (in the atomic/quantum world) in the sun.

Solar cells skip a few steps but still ultimately require light generated from the atomic world.

Wind relies on thermal energy created form the same light.

Tidal currents/generators rely on the gravitational force of the moon. (can you say magnetism?). Again, the atomic world.

Geothermal relies on heat in the earths center. Thermal energy created by gravity. Again, atomic energy.

Nuclear power plants convert atomic energy into thermal (steam), then into kinetic, and then into electric.

So why not skip the thermal step in nuclear power plants and go from atomic to kinetic (a spinning rotor) to electric. Now you have skipped a step and have no radioactive waste either! It is the most efficient system... except one.

A solid state generator is trying to convert atomic energy directly into electric without the step of kinetic.

The energy is all around you, above you, below you, inside of you. We just have to figure out how to harness it. Create energy? No. Harness it more effectively and efficiently? Yes!

lol, and to think a month ago I was against the idea.

[Farmhand]

OK carrying on from this post.
http://www.energeticforum.com/152627-post48.html

This is one possibility in my opinion in general terms,

The bubbling of the cosmic foam or the "fluctuation" causes a resonant rise and fall of potentials and concentrations of energy which compound to cause greater and greater differences of potential, it is the attempted equalisation of these potentials which cause the phenomena of electricity and magnetism, mass is formed by electricity and deformed by magnetism, gravity and radiation are the result or effect of this process. There really is no need for a "Big Bang" as such. However big bangs would indeed occur regularly.

Search youtube for "The Electric Universe".
RIR W Thornhill The Electric Universe 1/12 - YouTube

Everything spins because of the intertwining nature of the spiraling energy or "waves".

Harmonics and all sorts of fun stuff are involved most of which is way out of my league. And as such much of what I write is just how i am understanding it right or wrong. This paragraph was my disclaimer.

I recommend studying all the diagrams in Walter Russell's book "The Universal One" .

The gyroscopic effect such as the effect you feel when you hold a bike wheel by the axle while it is spinning, like the twisting tilting effect. What causes that ?

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Oh yeah and I think that the word "Universe" is the word that is generally used to describe just a very small part of an infinate Universe namely the part the we can conceive or "perceive".

The term Overunity makes no sense and is impossible of course. But that is generally used to descibe ending up with more than one starts with but not actually creating anything. In that sense a solar panel could be considered an overunity device. But it is really just a collector as you so rightly have stated.

C.O.P is not a very useful measurement in my opinon because it was never really meant to be used over a value of 1 to 1, just like there is only really 100 % of something. However one can use say 150% to descibe 1 and 1/2 times something else. If C.O.P is a function of input to output what is the C.O.P of a solar panel. Because the basic efficiency of solar panels is round 17 to 19 % usually but that is "Not" the C.O.P.

Most people when they say or use the term overunity understand that they will not create any energy, just use or store more than they input.

In a closed system there would be no losses or gains.

Interesting topic in my opinon. A good discussion is always a way forward from somewhere to somewhere else.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

In a closed system there would be no losses or gains.

OK I quoted myself because I think I may have found a point we can all eventually agree on, the point quoted above.

When People talk of the laws of thermo-dynamics and closed systems how do they explain where the losses go ? If the system is closed the losses remain so how could they be lost.

In an open system if losses can go away from the system then gains can come to the system as well. What would not make sense is for one to be possible but not the other. Hence solar panels do actually gain energy into the system, and 142857 I realise that you do acknowledge this point.

The question is only the how and how much and at what rate.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

So the solar system it's self is likely moving under it's own power (sun is the driver)

Sorry for the selective quote from the other thread and I'm not saying I agree with it, but this sounds a bit like a "self runner".

I hear most scientists when they talk of these things they are usually careful to say "We believe" or "I believe" or "It is believed" or "we have come to the conclusion".

None of it sounds definate and that is probably because they cannot say for sure. If they actually know so much why do they not say "this is how it is" or "we know for a fact" and "we can prove this" instead of the usual religious belief like statements they make ?

If they don't know for sure of something and they stick to a belief, that is faith. I don't begrudge anyone thier faith or belief's but i do not consider other's beliefs as my facts.

I have my own belief's. And faith is not really required except in ourselves. Maybe some of us will prove some things maybe we won't, no harm no foul.

Cheers