to all you over unity fanatics

[thunderhead]

Here is a challenge for you, since you understand EM so much better than most respectable physicists.  Can you tell us how a moving electric field creates an associated magnetic field in a vacuum?

While you're at it, can you explain to me how come current pulses travel down transmission wires at nearly the speed of light, when the electrons only move at millimetre speeds?

[Roamer195]

Tom,

After scanning your other posts here and there, I don't think you're part of the local self-appointed "physics cops".

My comments were directed, primarily, at the ones that are always screaming the word "kook" when all they do is read from their schoolbooks and parrot what they've read.

And yes, it really does appear that several "energy collector" systems have been left in everyone's lap here.

I'm not a "disciple" of anything. I'm only telling you what I know from first-hand observations.

[Roamer195]

1. The only confusion here is that it looks like LINKS to PLANS and INSTRUCTIONS were already posted, along with pretty concise EXPLANATIONS.
   
2. You haven't built or tested what's already been posted.
   
3. "I" haven't shown you anything. I'm just looking at what other people have posted and I've recognized a couple that appear to be working with the real thing. In other words, they're explanation of the process rings true with what I've been doing for several years now.
   
   

Somebody else here emailed me and told me about this board and about some devices being discussed here that were directly related to my own toys.

I'm not really looking for any peer review, and I feel like, for my own purposes, that I'm already "winning", thanks.

Yes, "science is easy". If it involves questioning some dogma from previous generations, all the better.

I'm not feeling arrogant or superior. What I'm feeling is disgust for those that open their textbooks, read from the "holy word" and then declare anyone who disagrees with them to be an un-educated kook.

[jacquesm]

Hey there Roamer,

Plans, instructions and links to do constitute a working device. I think the appropriate American words to use are 'Show Me'.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in absence of that evidence I reserve my skepticism.

I don't need to build or test what I do not think is possible, but if you think it is then you are free to do so, and you can report your successes - or failures - in the appropriate way. Be prepared for disappointment though.

Questioning 'dogma' is a healthy attitude, without Einstein questioning Newton we would not have a relativity theory. And without that no solar cells - funny as that may seem, one of Einsteins insights during the development of General Relativity was that all energy is equivalent and that there should be paths that convert light into electricity directly. After that the search for the solar cell was on.

In science there is no 'Holy Word', there is only the currently best theory and you are free to overthrow any and all 'laws of man', provided you back your words up with proof. Until then - until you can show that proof - all you have is ideas and conjectures and they don't hold any weight at all. All of science will have to bow to whoever proves any theory wrong, and the mechanism to do that has become finely honed over the ages. In fact, if there is any 'Holy Word' in science then it is 'Nothing is holy'. The standard of proof is a tough one though, and the reason for that is simple, it doesn't pay to chase every wild lead, we should pay attention to the promising ones. Science is not based in beliefs, it is based in FACTS. What you believe does not matter. You can believe the world is flat or that it is the center of the universe (or just of the solar system if you're of a more limited viewpoint) but science will PROVE you wrong. Beliefs and the scientific way are mutually exclusive. You can have a theory and you can have facts to back up that theory. If nobody shoots it down then your theory will be accepted - for now - until something better comes along.

For what it's worth, I only have 'grade school' completed, and high school (back in NL) to the 4th year due to 'personal circumstances'. I'll be the last one to snigger on anybodys lack of education. That doesn't stop me from trying to learn as much as I can.

My personal view on the whole 'over unity' scene is that it is a real pity that so many people are wasting their time, money and creativity chasing a mirage, when they could actually be really furthering our state by shooting for more achieveble goals.

Peace to you,

and best regards,

  Jacques.

[jacquesm]

hehe, funny typo in line one, that's supposed to read 'do not' of course

[jacquesm]

The first one I have to pass, it's outside of my knowledge, but I have an excellent analogy that can help to visualise the second:

Imagine a tube a mile long filled end to end with marbles. As soon as you push a marble into the tube other end one will pop out. Instantenous, no delay whatsoever. Even though the marbe you pushed in moves only a few mm/second at best it appears to have travelled down your mile long tube at lightspeed. The electrons that come 'out' at the far end of a wire are not the same ones that you push in on the far side, at least not right away.
 

[devoncloud]

Roamer, first off, the one very basic rule of science that keeps coming back and haunting people who look for new scientific ideas is that SCIENCE IS FALSIFIABLE!!!!!  This is a law concerning science that comes back to byte people in the hiney who simply "believe" in something but never come up with actual proof.  This is why the burden of proof is in the believer, and not in the skeptics.  The skeptiks keep science real, because the believers have to prove to the skeptics that their beliefs are founded, and the only way to do that is to make a working devise, show the skeptics how it works, put it together, and show the skeptics that it actually does work.  After you have done that, then and only then does it become the burden of the skeptics to prove the findings false or accept them as truth.

You over unity folks seem to want to skip that step, the most important step in the scientific community!!!!  This is why you get people on this site that get pissed when you preach this crap as if it is the gospel.  It is not the gospel.  It is a false theory!  If it were a true theory we would not be having this chat, we would be having a chat about when the devises would be comming out on the market.  Be a believer all you want, but do not get pissed at us non-believers for pointing out to you that your beliefs are unfounded, not real, or false.  They are this in reality my friends.... that is until you prove otherwise.  If you want us to believe in something that breaks just about every physics law in the book, then show us using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, not the RELIGIOUS KOOK METHOD where we should simply believe because you say so.

Devon

[Roamer195]

Actually, you just hit on the crux of the problem

Yes, there are NO machines the PRODUCE power ANYWHERE in human experience. Every machine in existance has to "live" by this principle.

But, it IS very common to use a small CONTROL power to "harness" a larger flow of power in a "separate loop". Some of that "harnessed" power from the larger loop is diverted to the smaller "CONTROL loop" to keep the process going once it's started.

Your windmills do this pretty well. But, you have to be willing to look at the system from a different perspective in order to understand.

You take time to build a generator and some blades and then you put it up in the air and wait for the wind to blow. All this wind power is free, AFTER you subtract the cost of construction, right?

So, one loop is the part where YOU provided the INPUT POWER to build your mill. Call this initial USER INPUT ENERGY quantity "A". Then the mill DRAWS IT'S POWER from a larger "WIND LOOP". It DRAWS enough wind power to do two things.

1. It overcomes it's own internal bearing friction and starts turning, producing some heat, noise, etc..., with a PORTION of the wind power it COLLECTED. Call this energy quantity "B". So, "B" is what it takes just to keep the blades turning by overcoming internal losses.
   
2. It also turns the generator against an electrical load. This is the "extra" power drawn from the wind. Call this energy quantity "B". This is what gets delivered to the power line for YOU to use.
   
   

So, the total wind power COLLECTED by the mill is "B"+"C".

The total power YOU get to use is just "C".

"B" was "diverted" to keep the mill turning (internal losses to overcome for continued rotation).

"B" is internal use (Control energy in loop 1).

"C" is power delivered TO YOU.

"A" is everything YOU PERSONALLY input to the system to get it going.

From the perspective of the USER, only a small initial input "A" results in a system that collects enough environmental energy to RUN ITSELF "B", and GENERATE EXTRA POWER "C".

If you use "coefficient of performance" to measure the system, you simply look at how much total power the system delivers "C" and compare it to how much it takes to keep the system in motion "B".

C.O.P. = "C"/"B"

So, from that perspective, lets say you have 100watts collected by the blades. 10watts is used to overcome internal losses and 90watts is delivered to the generator.

This is 90watts/10watts   or   C.O.P.=9

From the WINDMILL perspective, it's collecting enough ambient energy to RUN ITSELF, "B" energy, AND it's DELIVERING TO THE USER *NINE TIMES* the quantity of "B".

It's nothing magical. It's just a matter of changing perspective.

From the USER perspective, the mill is "running itself" AND providing extra "o/u" power, compared to what the USER is putting into the system, "A", to keep it going.

I'll stop here for the moment. Allow yourself fully digest how C.O.P. and "efficiency" are really issues of perspecitive. They're just a means of comparison.

[Roamer195]

Relative field magnitudes based on relative velocities. Faster field changes equal faster rises in induced potentials.

What are the fields? Space-time distortions? Where did the original "free energy" fields come from at the point of origin (big bang)? No answers for this that don't lead into philosophical discussion.

As for the second question...

From a quantum mechanical perspective, there is a what amounts to a superluminal precursor to potentialization. This precursor tension exists because the two source-potential poles are already "entangled" due to their immediate proximity to eachother in 3-space. In other words, the atoms in the battery components are already near eachother so one "knows" what the other is "thinking" already.

Potentialization (applied voltage) is a "scalded hog" that heads off in opposite directions through the circuit from the two poles of the source-potential (battery...)

This potential wavefront travels at the speed of light (slightly less) through the circuit. This is seen as a primary RF component at switch closure. In HV circuits this can cause a "blue hair" effect that stands out at right angles to the wire for a split-second.

Once the circuit is fully potentialized, electron shuffling waves begin travel from atom-to-atom in the conductor at all points simultaniously. These waves manifest as measurable hard-current, but not the actual electron flow.

The simplest analogy would be of a football crowd doing "the wave". The "wave" travels down the stands, but, hopefully, the people's arms aren't being ripped off and sent down the stands also.

[Roamer195]

Here's a start.

http://www.nuscam.com/verified.htm

It's not what you think it is.

[jacquesm]

I don't have enough background knowledge to follow your explanation, most of it does not tie in to knowledge that I already have which makes it very hard to follow. If you were to restate your words in the normally used terms then that might be helpful. I fully agree with you that it is unknown where the energy that powered the big bang and the subsequent creation of matter came from, and that any speculation as to its origin will inevitably lead to philosophy.

Where I live scalded hogs usually run off in only one direction at the time, it's somewhat detrimental to the continued function of the hog as such to be heading off in two directions at once. Also it makes an ugly mess.

I did think the 'wave' bit was a particulary effective example though, a bit like the marbe example I used somewhere else.

[Roamer195]

We have windmills, PV cells, Solar concentrators, water turbines, etc.....

Every one of these systems requires USER input for construction. Then, ideally, they collect a certain quantity of "Nature Power".

From this quantity some is SPENT on internal losses in the device materials.

The remaining energy AFTER losses are paid up is what the USER RECEIVES.

Every one of these examples is an "over unity" system from the perspective of the USER, since the USER isn't constantly applying PERSONAL INPUT to keep any of them going.

Each one has an internal "coefficient of performance". This is seen as...

(Power delivered to the user)(Power used for internal losses)

This usually shows C.O.P.>1 from that perspective, inside the machine.

From the USER PERSPECTIVE, the calculation will always be....

(Power Delivered to the User)(Total User Input)

For "nature power" systems, this always results in a system with an ever-increasing C.O.P. the longer the system runs.

All the the genuine so-called "over unity" systems operate on the same "nature power" principles that drive all the known conventional systems. There's no need invoke any "violations" of thermodynamic "laws". Perspective is everything.

[Roamer195]

Oops. Typo.

That should read..

...From the USER PERSPECTIVE, the calculation will always be....

(Power Delivered to User)/(Total User Input)

....

[jacquesm]

I don't have enough background knowledge to follow your explanation, most of it does not tie in to knowledge that I already have which makes it very hard to follow. If you were to restate your words in the normally used terms then that might be helpful. I fully agree with you that it is unknown where the energy that powered the big bang and the subsequent creation of matter came from, and that any speculation as to its origin will inevitably lead to philosophy.

Where I live scalded hogs usually run off in only one direction at the time, it's somewhat detrimental to the continued functioning of the hog as such to be heading off in two directions at once. Also it makes an ugly mess.

I did think the 'wave' bit was a particulary effective example though, a bit like the marbe example I used somewhere else.

[thunderhead]

Relative field magnitudes based on relative velocities. Faster field changes equal faster rises in induced potentials.

"Relative velocities"?  "Relative velocities?"  What velocity do you think the conversion from electric to magnetic fields and back happens at?  In my primitive physicist understanding, it is to do with the permittivity and permeability of the medium: that is, the inverse of the geometric mean of permittivity and permeability - which is a constant.

Try it for empty space.  Calculate ε0 times μ0, find one-over-square-root of it to get the inverse geometric mean, and see what result you get.  You may recognise it as a very well known constant.  We'll call that a score for the respectable physicists, then - in this case, a man called Maxwell.

Now, a clue. Magnetic fields are manifestations of current.  Even a permanent magnet contains currents at the atomic level, all aligned to produce the familiar effect.  So - when a moving electric field induces a magnetic field, where is the current?

Respectable physicists know that the moving magnetic fields induce voltage, and they can use their explanation to build electrical machines where magnetic fields are moved to create voltage.  Lots of people here have built them (often getting the wind to move the magnetic fields, since the wind is free) using that same respectable physics.  Lots of folks here know that the respectable physics explanation works.

But to you, they're living in the Stone Age.

As for question 2, it's that "scalded hog" I'm interested in.  How does it run?  What are its legs composed of?  Respectable physicists have an explanation, that can be used to design radios and transmission lines that work.  How about you?

Plain English, please.

[Chester]

That's a nicely worded analogy for the wave. LOL.

I will attempt, one more time, to describe the overunity aspect of the Permogator motor. I discovered this quite by accident, but I believe it to be a bonifide case of a motor powering itself.

As is generally known, when there are two voltage sources within a circuit, they add or subtract from each other depending on their polarity. The Permogator motor uses a battery and 555 chip to pulse primary voltage into the circuit. The current from the battery induces a pulsed magnetic field in the coils and the centers of the magnets on a freely rotating rotor disc in which they reside are attracted to the centers of the stator coils . But the magnets just center on the coils and sit there and do nothing. That's all the energy given to the device at this point in time.

Apply some more external energy in the form of momentum to the rotor. In other words, give it a spin by flipping it along with your finger tip. It doesn't take much, but new voltage is created by virture of the magnets now passing over the coils, in the form of a sinusoidal wave. It oscillates positive and negative. When it is positive it adds to the primary voltage just as you would expect, therefore also adding current to the coils, which attract the magnets to the coils with more force with each pass, which adds still more voltage, which attracts more strongly, etc. When the wave is negative it changes the polarity of the coils and repels the magnets away, again, with more force each pass. It does this by itself, needs no coaxing or tending. It begins to build upon itself, moving ever faster, creating ever greater voltage until it can no longer overcome the friction of the bearing. No additional power comes from the battery during this process. The device gains energy from its own increasing momentum as a result of a tiny finger flip, to the point where the very inefficient alternator built into the unit produces more potential current, than is supplied by the battery.

It doesn't work unless the DC primary voltage is pulsed. Answer me that.

So, if this is not bonifide overunity, or energy from nothing, what is it? Let's say it's an example of surfing the Aetheral wind, if that is an okay analogy.

There should be enough information in my diary for anyone to build this and test it. It's very simple to construct.

[devoncloud]

Roamer, I get what you are saying, but you are forgetting one very major thing here, which is that a wind generator catches very little of the power the wind.  It is very ineficient, so what you call "A" (user input)let's say is a gust of wind that produces 5 MW of electricity outputted through the turbine.  given the fact that wind generators are pretty ineficient at catching the power of the wind, we probably missed 30 MW of power while we caught the 5.  I am not talking about the full wind gust either, just the wind that went through the diameter of the blades.  This within itself makes a wind generator not a unity machine.  

There are also many other huge losses in the system as well, in the form of resistanse, how much of the flux you actually harness after you get the thing spinning, and a few other causes such as eddy currents.

And, correct me if I am wrong, you are not talking about a continuous energy source to run your machine which a wind gennie needs.  You are talking about the machine needing some sort of "boost" in the beginning, but that after the boost, the machine will run itself with no more need for outside energy sources, create MORE ENERGY in the process, only keeping what energy you need to keep the machine running while you output the energy not needed to run the machine.

This is what is assinine about your whole plan.  I am not sure how to put a mathematical figure ona unit of energy, but let's say that x signifies a unit of energy that translates into 1 MW of electricity if harnessed perfectly with no losses.  You build a unity machine, and put 5x worth of energy to get the machine started, and then you output 5 MW of electricity.  You are saying that you will be able to continue this process.  This is against the rules and laws of EVERYTHING SCIENTIFIC.  for 5x worth of energy, you can AT BEST come up with 5 MW of electricity if you are 100 percent efficient.  Chances are , with 5x of energy you will produce 2MW of energy and have 3x worth of energy lost due to heat or some other means.  That is the law of energy my friend!  You cannot "CREATE" energy... you can only "borrow" the energy that is there. By this I mean if you have 5x worth of energy in the form of wind, you can change that 5x to some other form of energy (in our case electricity)but when we finish with it it goes back to the earth still at 5x worth of energy in some form or another.  What you are suggesting means that you will take 5x and when you are done you will have infinite x...... sorry, but that crap don't fly.

Devon

Devon

[devoncloud]

this is wrong, see my post above roamer from one of your replies to me earlier.  What you are suggesting is that unity machines will take in an energy unit, again, let us call it x.  So, to get your machine started, you give it 5x worth of energy.  It then uses only 1x in order to keep itself spinning, while it can output 3x worth of energy (in the form of electricity I guess if that is what we are creating)and then using that 1x left over to keep itself running and create another 5x worth of energy from nothing.  CANT DO IT!!!!!

LAWS OF ENERGY:  YOU CANNOT CREATE IT, YOU CANNOT KILL IT.  IT IS JUST THERE FOR US TO BORROW or to change from one form of energy to another.  In the end though, it is the same unit of energy you started out with.

So, this means, if you start out with 5x worth of energy, you end up with 5x worth of energy in a different form(s)

You are suggesting that it is possible to make 5x=infinite(x)..... IMPOSSIBLE.

This cannot be done.  Against every physical and mathematical law in the book.

Devon

[nack]

If you build it, they will come.

[devoncloud]

This link means nothing.  take of that 10v battery and see if that light still blinks... of course, it will not, which is what you will need for that machine to be a over unity machine.  In fact, just leave it on and see how long that battery will last... not long I bet.  This link proves absolutely nothing in regards to overunity.

[devoncloud]

ok, whatever tecker.  So you have a floating magnet which has now made it's surroundings a magnet.  Fine.  Now, harness the energy being created by it and see if it still works.... oh, it doesnt work or you cannot figure out a way to harness the energy? oops, there goes your theory!  

Devon

[devoncloud]

build it then.  and, if it is that simple, here is a way for you to overcome the bearing problem... hook the alternator up to something like a battery charger and a battery (with a load dump on the charger so that you can still dump the load when thye battery is fully charged) so that instead of using the energy to continuously increase the speed of the motor, you are using the energy into something else.  You could easily add a chip of some sort to kick your electricity flow to the battery charger after the motor reaches a certain speed, and then when it slows have a cut out speed where the motor will then feed itself again until it gains speed again....  You will probably be the richest man on the planet if you succeed, and if your instructions are as simple as you say they are, there is your overunity machine my friend!

But we all know that this is not the case and your description of this devise is to say the least exagerated.... please, prove me wrong!

Devon

[devoncloud]

On second thought, drop the battery charger and the battery and the chips to figure cut in speed and cut out speed, and just hook it up to the load dump.  Hook up the power source, give it a whirl with your finger, get it going, and then take your initial power source off the unit.  Every time it picks up too much speed, bring the load dump on line to slow it down, and then take the load dump off until it picks up speed again.  You can work on the chips to do this automatically later.  You just need to pick a load dump that will not bring it to a screaching halt by sucking up too much power or one that will not draw enough power to slow it down.

Do this, and then let us see if your machine is really over unity or not my friend.  If you succeed, I will be the first to congratulate you into the world of riches.

Devon

[stop4stuff]

Hi Folks,

What an interesting situation...

Roamer195... Do you refer to the Bedini Motor Generator, U.S. Patent 6,392,370?

I understood the device to have a COP of >1, and the nearest feasable explanation for this is that the device draws energy from the space around us... a small amount of energy, maybe in a similar fashoin to the way a crystal radio set uses energy from radio waves to produce a measurable output (seemingly overunity but not).

Anyway... once I figured out what device I think you're on about, I did some research... and read the patent.

To view the patent, visit http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and search for Patent no. 6,392,370.

Here's an exerpt from the Summary of the Invention ( about 80% of the way down the first page )

'The device and method of the present invention is a new permanent electromagnetic motor generator that recycles back EMF energy (regauging) thus allowing the motor to produce an energy level of COP=0.98, more or less, depending upon configuration...'

Is the Bedini Motor Generator the device you abstractly refer to?

paul

[Electric Ed]

[Roamer195]

You've indicated is that:

1. You refuse to take to time to really look at what's there and what he's saying.
   
2. You refuse to do any further digging into the subject for further reference material.
   
3. Because of #1 and #2 you really haven't the slightest clue about what you're proceeding to criticize.
   
   

It's not about "flashing a bulb". The bulb is simply there to show that the machine is passing real power out of the back end and WILL charge a battery quite handily.

Believe it or not, others are building these things and learning what the real deal is.

I know this from the emails that I get.

I have nothing invested in playing games with your emotions. Whenever I discuss it I "head in" fully aware that I'm gonna get flamed from all sides.

When the oil, gasoline, and gaseous petroleum fuel prices begin to skyrocket, maybe you'll take a second look. Or maybe you'll just start burning your furniture for heat.

I mean, have you ever even looked at what a regular, off-the-shelf D.C. motor can really do when you UNDERSTAND THE PROPER SETUP for a PWM controller??? Don't look to the textbooks for their "proper" methods. They're either woefully ignorant, OR they're telling lies. Take your pick.

Playing around with homemade PWM's was how I found my way back to the Bedini stuff, AFTER I had long since decided Bedini's machines were junk. Turns out they aren't.

Now I don't need PWM's since it's already an integral part of his design.

[Roamer195]

The idea of seeing any "quantum white-noise rectifiers"(as good an image as it gets) on the open market is incredibly disturbing to those nice folks in D.C.

They rely on HUGE sums of tax money from energy sales at all levels, dipping into the distribution chain at EVERY LEVEL; taxes on taxes on taxes.

You CANNOT manufacture or SELL anything like this. Suddenly, you'll discover that your bank accounts no longer work and, gee, look at that, no tools or materials left in your shop.......

If you've never had your life threatened because you wanted to see the "right thing" done, then you'll have no understanding or real empathy towards those that have.

There are no "conspiracies", as such. There are simply little tyrants that send a couple of lackeys to "straighten you out" so you don't "rock the boat". They REALLY LIKE having your tax money and THEY have the bigger guns.

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/index11.html

Not "gospel". Simple observation UP CLOSE of working devices.

For pete's sake, you can run a continuous mechanical load for extended periods of time by simply switching the source and receiver battery positions periodically. Much longer than a standard D.C. motor would EVER ALLOW. And this keeps the batteries fully charged. Ever seen this??? Thought not.

You COULD see it if you took the time to read and then BUILD a model. The model is just an INSTRUCTION DEVICE to let you SEE the theories in ACTION.

Then YOU can take it ANYWHERE YOU WANT TO after that. Why do you think he's taken the time to eplain it, blow-by-blow. It's about making sure the methods are not lost again.

Keeping secrets just makes revolutionary technology disappear.

Believe what you want.

[Roamer195]

First, I wasn't citing any specifics for "amount of wind collected". It was a simple mental exercise to build a working flow

In a nutshell, what everyone's been taught about how "electricity" works is not EXACTLY wrong. It's simply incomplete.

If you believe that the mechanical input to the blades is actually being TRANSFORMED into electrical current by the generator then you'd be incorrect.

If you believe that the GENERATOR CURRENT is what charges your batteries at the other end of the line, you would, again, be incorrect.

These are simply SURFACE APPEARANCES, and not at all what's happening at the hard physics level.

No energy needs to be "created". I've never suggested it.

In fact, I spent a couple of years flatly debunking (to myself) all of the statements I just made. But, I later discovered that I was quite wrong, and that my standard electrical texts were incomplete.

What normally appears to be "cause and effect" in standard generator designs is actually several DISTINCT processes that TRIGGER eachother, depending on which direction you start from.

This is called "broken symmetry" in physics. It's never been applied to modifying electrical engineering texts, even after 50 years, and even after nobel prizes WERE awarded to the physicists (Wu, Lee, and Prigogine).

[Roamer195]

Seems like your emotions and "na na" reflexes are getting the best of you. This isn't the alt.sci.physics newsgroup and I'm not here to have armchair theory discussions. It's about verifiable hardware, nothing more.

...Relative velocities of the field's center of origin, as it relates to power generation is the context that I'm living in here.

A "magnet" and it's associated "magnetic field" are not the same thing. Moving a magnet results in it's "field" or "space-time distortion" following along and maintaining a specific shape relative to the physical attributes of the magnet.

Two magnets passing eachother have a relative speed of approach and departure. The two fields appear to grow larger (to eachother) as the relative speed increases.

This is what matters, again, where "the rubber meets the road", your generator.

The field itself is something that we can see the "effects" of, but there is no clear definition of just what kind of "stuff" the field is composed of. Having that answer would probably explain what happened "before" the big bang.

Defining the "field" by it's "effects" is like defining your shoes as "taking a walk".

Scalded hogs are easier to skin, and to define. If you burn him, he will run.

"You would battle to the death with a man who is not your enemy." -Lancelot-

In other words, I've had enough of arguing. I'll simply post references to the subject at hand.

Here are some physicists that got it right. Wu, Lee, and Prigonine. It's all about "broken symmetry" in nature, and especially with the electrical side of nature.

Broken Symmetry:

This is full of reference material. Read it or not. Whatever.

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/083101a.htm

And some related thoughts. He discusses broken symmetry in nature.

http://www1.bell-labs.com/user/cope/Patterns/Symmetry/VSLive2001/FutureOfLanguage.html

[Roamer195]

What I'm saying is that your windmill is using a portion of the COLLECTED NATURAL ENERGY from the wind to first OVERCOME IT'S OWN INTERNAL FRICTION. In other words, it CONVERTS some of the COLLECTED ENERGY to RUN ITSELF.

There is nothing in physics that says electrical systems are all "closed systems". In fact, they're quite open. Especially when they are "in sync" with the outside energy source, harmonically speaking.

A simple crystal radio is doing EXACTLY the SAME THING as a windmill.

It RESONATES (rings) as OUTSIDE ENERGY strikes it. This resonant condition can only occur if it COLLECTS enough energy to overcome the internal resistance of the circuit FIRST.

This much is just like the wind speed coming up to just enough to get the blades turning. But not enough to load the genny without stalling it.

Back to the radio....

A DIODE rectifies the remaining COLLECTED ENERGY and makes it usable in an external LOAD (earphone).

This is the power that gets to the house from the windmill genny.

Thermodynamically OPEN SYSTEMS. You don't need to defy physics to get usable power from open systems that can re-order (rectify) semi-chaotic natural energy sources.

A blade is a mechanical rectifier.

A director tail-vane is a mechanical rectifier.

A sail is a mechanical rectifier

A novel EM field structure can also be a rectifier.

[Roamer195]

Yep. Build one and study it. Then you'll see.

There is no "perpetual motion" and no "energy creation".

If someone beamed several KW of microwave energy into your house from outside, you'd have no problem believing that you might be able to tap it and turn it back into usable electrical power.

What really needs to be understood is that the quantum vacuum is always "bubbling". This is the basic, underlying essence of everything around you.

It's also what's producing every bit of light, heat, and mechanical power that comes out of the technology in your possession.

The confusing thing is that all these different manifestations are discrete energy loops, not the same continuous loop. The loops overlap, much like the overlapping rings in the olympic banner.

Given the proper controlled sequencing, you can separate the loops. This then leads you to being able to "trigger" a loop without doing any overlapping input work. The trigger points are where the "rings" cross over eachother. In a 5th dimensional sense, they're all at "right angles" to eachother.

At least, that's what my cat tells me.

 

[jacquesm]

>  In a 5th dimensional sense,

You're asking for it

[Roamer195]

It's not me saying it. It's the cat.