Tom Bearden and Oil?

[Aaron]

bouncing ball

There is no such thing as conservation - 100% of the energy you put in
to lift the ball is dissipated when you complete the lift. You then created
a dipole or potential difference and the free gravitational input is able to
be converted to work on the ball when let go small losses in the fall and
most of the work is when it hits the ground.

It is about 83% efficient but over 7.0 cop. That means each successive
bounce goes to about 83% of the previous height with 17% losses, on
the bounce up, 100% of all of that is 100% dissipated at the peak of
each bounce and the dipole will be 83% of the previous height so there
is less gravitational potential to exert as much push on the ball in order
to bounce it up to the same height, obviously, any arguments about
not bouncing to the same height are the blind leading the blind.

Gravity is not theoretically able to contribute - that IS where the potential
comes from for each successive bounce.

Making any comparison to the fact that the ball cannot get to the same
height each time is comparing apples to oranges and does not indicate an
understanding of what is even happening.

Inquorate, I see you mention that math, I was doing complex technical
calculus 20 years ago and it bored me out of my mind. This bouncing ball
math is elementary addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

Anyone claiming that you are storing potential when you lift a ball has
no fundamentals that they are working with - it is a myth. Show me the
"potential" that is stored - it is a figment of anyone's imagination when
they claim that - it is an abstract concept.

Lifting a ball doesn't store any more potential than a battery. A battery
doesn't store potential, it is a dipole that has a certain potential difference
between the terminals so that the potential can come in at different
"pressures". The higher you lift something, you are not storing potential
either - you are creating a bigger potential difference. When you let go
of the ball, there is NO MORE of your energy or potential left from your
lift - it is 100% dissipated. When letting go, all the potential is NEW
POTENTIAL that comes into the system to push the ball down and NONE
of this is converted energy or potential from your lifting energy.

Having a proper understanding of what energy and potential is allows all
the pseudo science of talking about the transformation of energy from
one form to another, storing potential and a bunch of pure unadulterated
nonsense to go by the wayside so people can see things for what they are.

Lifting a ball and having free gravitational input come into the system is
not an abstract concept that is taught by ignorant book writers, it is the
only tangible potential that there really is and it is never stored, ever.

[Aaron]

bouncing ball over 1.0 cop

Take a Egg instead a jumping Ball and Energy is converted.
Take a jumping Ball and Energy is created.
Lack of Fundamentals? Yes, Yours.

Yep, free energy from the vacuum in the form of gravitational potential.
Bouncing ball is an open dissipative system.

[ashtweth]

Back on track please

Hi ALL ,

Panacea just got an email from Tom, hope it helps

Name: Tom Bearden
Location: U.S.A.
Email: XXXXXXXX
Website: The Tom Bearden Website
message: Gentlemen:

I just want to make you aware of a demonstrated, proven, and independently
replicated (by two great U.S. National Laboratories) solution to the world energy crisis, about four years or so ago.The news seems to have completely missed it, even though it is already widely published in leading physics and nanocrystalline journals. Please check this out to your heart's content.

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
======================================


Free and Practical EM Energy from the Vacuum and Its Use to Power Loads
The World Energy Crisis Solution has been rigorously demonstrated and proven by Klimov at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and further validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) about four years or so ago.

It has been openly published in leading physics journals of the world, and in
leading nanocrystalline science journals.Please check this rigorous work four years or more ago by Dr. Victor Klimov et al.Dr. Klimov and his colleagues in LANL have constructed a tiny nanocrystalline solar cell which can absorb the light of a specific wave length in such a way, that one photon input to the solar cell can and will energize more than one electron. As soon as the electron absorbs a photon, it disappears for a very short moment into the
quantum field. Being in the virtual state the electron can borrow energy from the vacuum and thereafter appears again in our reality. Now the electron can energize up to 7 other electrons. This leads to a theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of up to 700%. A COP = 200% can be easily achieved and it has been, as has been higher values. The experiment has also been replicated successfully and validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado. [See Herb Brody, "Solar Power - Seriously Souped Up." New Scientist, May 27, 2006, p 45].

[qvision]

Thanks for that Ash

I've never doubted Mr Bearden.

Someone earlier mentioned his obvious passion and knowledge and that's a very personal truth when you are watching him on video in his home, enlightening us all with his conversation.

It was him that got me interested in this field many years ago, and it was Mr Bedini's SSG that started me experimenting and learning electronics just over a year ago now.

Bless them both.

[ewizard]

<snip<

YouTube - &#x202a;Self Running Bedini Oscillator&#x202c;&rlm;
I've had that up for a while - it is WAY over 1.0 cop. The voltage can
be charged up, will drop and then rise up to match the pressure of
what can come from the output and will just stay there indefinitely.
Not good for anything other than to prove the principle that you can take
the output and "close the loop" - it is pseudo closing - the front does
NOT know the output is being preferentially taken as the main source of
power before the front side power is taken. That is why it is pseudo closed
because if it was closed so that the it is a closed system, both caps
would wind down fast. In this demo, there are resistances in the coil,
voltage drops on the transistor (or so people are lead to believe), etc...
so there is of course dissipation in this circuit so it is under 100%
efficient - YET - it is able to feed itself so that it comes up to
synchronization with the free environmental input.

Transistors can actually run on voltage and not current but that is a
different topic.

This works because what Tom Bearden says is CORRECT.

The source dipole is not being killed, period, and those that take that
to heart can get the same results in many different applications. The
principles that Bearden shares can be taken to the bank. And these
principles apply even when you get to bigger and bigger scales with
even bigger and bigger results.
< snip

Aaron, Sorry I'm not interested much in the primary discussion here but am very interested in the video you posted above and whether there is more info and or a schematic around here on this circuit ?

[Farmhand]

Hi ALL ,

Panacea just got an email from Tom, hope it helps

Name: Tom Bearden
Location: U.S.A.
Email: XXXXXXXX
Website: The Tom Bearden Website
message: Gentlemen:

I just want to make you aware of a demonstrated, proven, and independently
replicated (by two great U.S. National Laboratories) solution to the world energy crisis, about four years or so ago.The news seems to have completely missed it, even though it is already widely published in leading physics and nanocrystalline journals. Please check this out to your heart's content.

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
======================================


Free and Practical EM Energy from the Vacuum and Its Use to Power Loads
The World Energy Crisis Solution has been rigorously demonstrated and proven by Klimov at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and further validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) about four years or so ago.

It has been openly published in leading physics journals of the world, and in
leading nanocrystalline science journals.Please check this rigorous work four years or more ago by Dr. Victor Klimov et al.Dr. Klimov and his colleagues in LANL have constructed a tiny nanocrystalline solar cell which can absorb the light of a specific wave length in such a way, that one photon input to the solar cell can and will energize more than one electron. As soon as the electron absorbs a photon, it disappears for a very short moment into the
quantum field. Being in the virtual state the electron can borrow energy from the vacuum and thereafter appears again in our reality. Now the electron can energize up to 7 other electrons. This leads to a theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of up to 700%. A COP = 200% can be easily achieved and it has been, as has been higher values. The experiment has also been replicated successfully and validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado. [See Herb Brody, &quot;Solar Power - Seriously Souped Up.&quot; New Scientist, May 27, 2006, p 45].

Hi Ash, I know I am cynical but ---
A solar technology as complex as nanocryslaline solar cells is not much of a solution, it is too complicated and far too easily controlled.

How would it get past the national security problem ( being classified a threat) when at present any solar panel over 20% efficient is a threat to national security ?

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Unfortunately. I wish it did and I hope it does. But I can't see how it would be any different to the already supressed solar technologies..

Cheers

[Aaron]

self runner

Aaron, Sorry I'm not interested much in the primary discussion here but am very interested in the video you posted above and whether there is more info and or a schematic around here on this circuit ?

It is a trifilar forced oscillator (not self oscillator by just having high
resistance at the gate). 2000 turns. Trigger 26 gauge and power is
23 gauge and recovery winding is 23 gauge.

The recovery windings is NOT wound together with the first two, it is
wound in the opposite direction.

The recovery winding has one single diode off one lead, the bottom one
going to the cap for recovery on 1/2 of the cycle. The positive of that
recovery cap is connected to the positive of the input cap. The negatives
are connected but it has a single diode that is pointed so that current
can only flow from the recovery cap to the front but the front side cap
CANNOT give any current to the recovery cap. That is pseudo closing
the loop because the output can be put back to the input but the input
never sees the output. That is why it works.

Anyway, in the joule thief thread, I posted that recovery method I think
and it outright cuts an SG draw in half - of course you get less recovery,
but you drop the mechanical work in half if you're not worried about
charging batteries.

There is a single rod outside in the ground connected to one of the
terminals of the recovery cap.

[pengrove]

Hi ALL ,

Panacea just got an email from Tom, hope it helps

Name: Tom Bearden
Location: U.S.A.
Email: XXXXXXXX
Website: The Tom Bearden Website
message: Gentlemen:

I just want to make you aware of a demonstrated, proven, and independently
replicated (by two great U.S. National Laboratories) solution to the world energy crisis, about four years or so ago.The news seems to have completely missed it, even though it is already widely published in leading physics and nanocrystalline journals. Please check this out to your heart's content.

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
======================================


Free and Practical EM Energy from the Vacuum and Its Use to Power Loads
The World Energy Crisis Solution has been rigorously demonstrated and proven by Klimov at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and further validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) about four years or so ago.

It has been openly published in leading physics journals of the world, and in
leading nanocrystalline science journals.Please check this rigorous work four years or more ago by Dr. Victor Klimov et al.Dr. Klimov and his colleagues in LANL have constructed a tiny nanocrystalline solar cell which can absorb the light of a specific wave length in such a way, that one photon input to the solar cell can and will energize more than one electron. As soon as the electron absorbs a photon, it disappears for a very short moment into the
quantum field. Being in the virtual state the electron can borrow energy from the vacuum and thereafter appears again in our reality. Now the electron can energize up to 7 other electrons. This leads to a theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of up to 700%. A COP = 200% can be easily achieved and it has been, as has been higher values. The experiment has also been replicated successfully and validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado. [See Herb Brody, &quot;Solar Power - Seriously Souped Up.&quot; New Scientist, May 27, 2006, p 45].

We know that they are keeping things from us. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it. If we can not build a device that helps out with the energy crisis then how else will we get it?

I don't see any of us building a nano crystalline solar panel in our shed.

[sucahyo]

To make bouncing ball self running, you need to put the ball back to previous dropping height. Can you make the ball go back to where it was by using the force created during its bouncing?

Seems that COP>1 do not mean it can be self running and has excess power?

What is the term we need to use for something that can self running and provide excess power?


If ball dropping has COP>7, how many COP needed to make it self running?

If you believe COP>7 can self run, can you show the design of ball dropping mechanism? Bouncing ball in gravity wheel or something? May try this on WM2D.

[Aaron]

bouncing ball

To make bouncing ball self running, you need to put the ball back to previous dropping height. Can you make the ball go back to where it was by using the force created during its bouncing?

Seems that COP>1 do not mean it can be self running and has excess power?

What is the term we need to use for something that can self running and provide excess power?


If ball dropping has COP>7, how many COP needed to make it self running?

If you believe COP>7 can self run, can you show the design of ball dropping mechanism? Bouncing ball in gravity wheel or something?

When the ball bounces to 83% of the previous height, you only have to
input 17% of the required joules to lift it to the original height and
for each bounce into perpetuity, you only have to input 17% to get 100%
of the original height each and every time. So if you have 10 bounces
and it takes 100 joules for simplicity to lift to the original meter, and you
put in 17 joules for the next 9 bounces, it will get to the original height
each time. That is 1000 joules of work for 17X9=153+original100=153
input. 1000 joules of total work input compared to only what we have to
put in 153 not including free gravitational input, which of course what
cop is, that is 1000/153 = COP 6.536. By doing this, the ball will in
fact get to the original height each bounce by injecting 17% of the
required joules for the initial lift - it is injected when the ball reaches
the 83% point and then give it 17 joules worth of lift to get it to the 100%
mark - this is 6.536 COP. I use 83% because that is the efficiency of the
ball that I happened to use.

It didn't take 100 joules to lift it to a meter, that was just an example
but the concept above is accurate and is an actual 6.536 COP.

With getting it to bounce back to the 100% mark - I have not done it
and I don't claim it can be done, but here is a thought experiment
that appears in line with what seems to be possible:

Have some kind of efficient spring loaded mechanism that can be pressed
down and it locks into position with each push - the ball is lifted from this
mechanism to 1 meter for example and dropped, it gives just enough to
compress the spring just a small bit so that instead of 83% bounce back,
maybe it is 70% or something. So it stores 13% of each bounce.
100/13=7.7 * about 2~2.5 = is around 17 bounces - because each
bounce's 13% is less and less... then when it gets depressed to that
depth, the mechanism releases and bounces the ball back up.

There certainly is enough work there to do this based on the numbers,
but I don't know what method could work if it can.

Just an idea.

As a note to nobody in particular - believing in a need to store potential completely
contradicts the entire need for a dipole.

[Armagdn03]

When the ball bounces to 83% of the previous height, you only have to
input 17% of the required joules to lift it to the original height and
for each bounce into perpetuity, you only have to input 17% to get 100%
of the original height each and every time. So if you have 10 bounces
and it takes 100 joules for simplicity to lift to the original meter, and you
put in 17 joules for the next 9 bounces, it will get to the original height
each time. That is 1000 joules of work for 17X9=153+original100=153
input. 1000 joules of total work input compared to only what we have to
put in 153 not including free gravitational input, which of course what
cop is, that is 1000/153 = COP 6.536. By doing this, the ball will in
fact get to the original height each bounce by injecting 17% of the
required joules for the initial lift - it is injected when the ball reaches
the 83% point and then give it 17 joules worth of lift to get it to the 100%
mark - this is 6.536 COP. I use 83% because that is the efficiency of the
ball that I happened to use.

It didn't take 100 joules to lift it to a meter, that was just an example
but the concept above is accurate and is an actual 6.536 COP.

With getting it to bounce back to the 100% mark - I have not done it
and I don't claim it can be done, but here is a thought experiment
that appears in line with what seems to be possible:

Have some kind of efficient spring loaded mechanism that can be pressed
down and it locks into position with each push - the ball is lifted from this
mechanism to 1 meter for example and dropped, it gives just enough to
compress the spring just a small bit so that instead of 83% bounce back,
maybe it is 70% or something. So it stores 13% of each bounce.
100/13=7.7 * about 2~2.5 = is around 17 bounces - because each
bounce's 13% is less and less... then when it gets depressed to that
depth, the mechanism releases and bounces the ball back up.

There certainly is enough work there to do this based on the numbers,
but I don't know what method could work if it can.

Just an idea.

As a note to nobody in particular - believing in a need to store potential completely
contradicts the entire need for a dipole.

Just thought I would jump in for a quick second, I have to agree with Aaron here.

All mechanical systems convert energy from one form to another. Particularly "efficient" machines convert energy wholly from one form, wholly to another form, any stray transduction into other forms such as heat or light or sound is considered loss when in actuality it is another transducer mechanism.

All things taken into account then, all transducers are 100% efficient always.

If the output of such a device is of the right character to be used again (retained within the system), you have a gain in COP. If you can cause this mechanism to bring in energy from outside the system, you are once again a step ahead of where you were.

[sucahyo]

Thanks Aaron. It appear that you explain that even if ball dropping produce 7 times energy of the input, the resulting energy may not be able to make the ball going back to the original position.

100% at first bounce is potential energy. If we utilize the potential energy of the dropping ball, would it still bounce at 83% previous height? I think it would bounce less. potential is not actual. If we utilize the potential energy, it may not bounce back at 83%. When we store the potential energy for the required 17% to revert the ball to original position, we may not get 100% conversion too. And the end total energy may not be COP>1.


I believe that COP>1 mean it is able to self run. If it can not be made to self run, it is not COP>1.


I have model some of gravity wheel and bouncing mechanism do not produce enough energy to produce self sustaining wheel. But with a little push maybe from water or wind, it may be able to self sustain.

[Aaron]

over 1.0 cop and closing the loop

I believe that COP>1 mean it is able to self run. If it can not be made to self run, it is not COP>1.


I have model some of gravity wheel and bouncing mechanism do not produce enough energy to produce self sustaining wheel. But with a little push maybe from water or wind, it may be able to self sustain.

Thanks for the explanation Armagnd!

Suchayo,

Over 1.0 cop doesn't mean it will self run. My refrigerator is probably cop
2.5-3.0 - that doesn't mean it will self run. However, IF the cop of my
refrigerator was about 7-8 cop, the heat being pumped out would
probably be enough to generate some steam that would turn a
generator to run the compressor and it would self run.

Over 1.0 cop only means there is more out that we put in not including
free environmental input.

Also, trying to get the ball to bounce itself back up to the original
position by capturing some of the work on all the bounces is an analogy
to feeding the output back to the input, which destroyed the dipole faster
because the spring loaded mechanism for example that I mentioned as
a thought experiment would rob energy, which is dissipated and the dipole's
potential difference is reduced even faster.

For example, when I answered about the self running oscillator circuit
that feeds the recovery cap to the input, it is wired so that the output
can go to the input, however, the input never sees the output. Therefore,
they actually are not rammed into each other and the dipole on the front
is not shorted out.

With the bouncing ball analogy, having a spring loaded mechanism, that
is seen by the front and does whittle away the dipole or potential
difference faster.

I have no idea what or if there is a way to get the ball to bounce back
up to the original height by collecting some of the push on each successive
bounce, but for sure, being over 1.0 cop does not mean it will self run.

But, for the most part, not closing the loop by feeding the output back
to the input in a way that the input sees the output is required in order
to allow natural free environmental input to produce free work. Close
the loop and you just shut it down.

All the systems that are self runners that feed output to the input are
"pseudo closed loops" - I invented that term to describe the fact that
the loop is not really closed. Simply output is fed to the input without
the primary input source ever seeing it. When that can be done in just
about any system, you can "close" the loop and allow it to self run,
but it is technically not closed, it is still open.

For example, not always optimum, but on an SG with a trifilar, the
recovery winding can charge a cap to a certain voltage then a commutator
can switch off the input battery connection and discharge that cap to
the input battery, then it reconnects the battery disconnects and
discharges cap back to the input battery.

In that example, at no time is the input battery and the capacitor from
the recovery winding connected to the power winding at the same time.
That is also "pseudo closed loop". I have seen these variations run for
weeks without the input battery going down - not just voltage effect,
the capacity of the battery was actually there. If you dump the cap
to the input while the battery is connected or feed the spikes back to
the input - the recovery is "ghosted" - it just disappears. Search
"ghosting" for old terminology but still accurate.

John Bedinis' EV Gray power conversion tube - 06/05/01

[boguslaw]

Aaron

Good idea with bouncing ball energy recovery. Though there is always better way
I mean a better way to bounce balls with proper engineering...

[Inquorate]

Hi ALL ,

Panacea just got an email from Tom, hope it helps

Name: Tom Bearden
Location: U.S.A.
Email: XXXXXXXX
Website: The Tom Bearden Website
message: Gentlemen:

I just want to make you aware of a demonstrated, proven, and independently
replicated (by two great U.S. National Laboratories) solution to the world energy crisis, about four years or so ago.The news seems to have completely missed it, even though it is already widely published in leading physics and nanocrystalline journals. Please check this out to your heart's content.

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
======================================


Free and Practical EM Energy from the Vacuum and Its Use to Power Loads
The World Energy Crisis Solution has been rigorously demonstrated and proven by Klimov at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and further validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) about four years or so ago.

It has been openly published in leading physics journals of the world, and in
leading nanocrystalline science journals.Please check this rigorous work four years or more ago by Dr. Victor Klimov et al.Dr. Klimov and his colleagues in LANL have constructed a tiny nanocrystalline solar cell which can absorb the light of a specific wave length in such a way, that one photon input to the solar cell can and will energize more than one electron. As soon as the electron absorbs a photon, it disappears for a very short moment into the
quantum field. Being in the virtual state the electron can borrow energy from the vacuum and thereafter appears again in our reality. Now the electron can energize up to 7 other electrons. This leads to a theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of up to 700%. A COP = 200% can be easily achieved and it has been, as has been higher values. The experiment has also been replicated successfully and validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado. [See Herb Brody, &quot;Solar Power - Seriously Souped Up.&quot; New Scientist, May 27, 2006, p 45].

they'll just get swept under the carpet like these guys who claimed 20% cost, 480watt per sq meter panels
NewNet News - Nano solar cell developer Solasta shutters