Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Free Energy Using Synthetic Tornadoes

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Thunders

Excellent discovery. However, Victor Schauberger’s work is clearly different from mine. His work does not grasp the concept of the Channelized Air Effect.




posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Hi... Its been a while since I have posted a update to my progress. I still don’t have a budget. But, I am still able to improve on the design of my ST’s. And, I am perfectly happy with this situation. I have honed down to a particularly promising design. There is a parameter in this design which, when increased, will improve the performance (more air flow) of the ST. It is also obvious that if this parameter is made large enough the performance would be hampered. Thus, some where out there, exists an optimum value of this parameter resulting in a peak performance for this ST design. I have no idea where this optimal value is. I have to keep making and testing ST’s, with an incremental increase in the parameter with each version until a peak performance is noticed.

I have no idea how much air flow I will have at this peak. If I had to take an educated guess, I would expect enough air flow to do some useful work.

On the publicity front, The number of collaborating witnesses is increasing. I have given, out dated, ST’s to friends who in turn have shown them to other people. I do not, however, have a “Creditable Scientist” as one of the witnesses. I am working on that.

I now have one small question for you ATS readers. Should I post a progress update after completing and testing each version (every 2-3 weeks), or should I wait for something more significant.


MBF

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I read a little about ST's in a Popular Science article. They proposed using hot water from a nuclear power plant to sustain the tornado. Instead of going to cooling towers for cooling, the vortex would "suck" the heat from the water cooling the water and extracting the heat to sustain itself and drive turbines.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   
The vortex motion in water is wellknow to create a rotational donutshaped force around it.

You have created the donut to reverse the effect! well done!

If your device is working, this will finally be proof that both the vortex and the donut shaped force around it are two different systems depending on eachother.

This is good news, and could spawn more research into whitch different forces actually creates the other system?
Plus it could reveal the geometry of the donutshaped rotational force around the vortex! witch it seemes you have found...

- Is it the rotaion of the vortex alone, that creates the donut shaped rotation around it?
- Is it the geometrical shape of the donut alone, that is responsible for the vortex it creates?
- Could this relate to the socalled "Frame dragging" effect and lead to a better understanding of it?
- Could there be a relationship with the vibrations and pulses the vortex creates and vice versa?

I'm looking forward to your further research and information on the subject


[edit on 25-1-2008 by Bluess]



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 


That small pump could be powered by an inverter 12/110 that worked off a battery deep cycle $50 .......charged by a small solar cell.

Now this is not a big set up all the boats use similar to pump bilges when no one is on boat. That is where you could get everything.

By using two batterys you would be great for power outage. Wire batterys for 12 volt charge both.

I used this on a trailer and batterys last 2 to 4 years.......

Thanks

Jim

Just go to a boat shop. Cell is about 12" X 12"



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Hi,

As you can see, it has been a while since I last posted anything. I am happy to announce that I have finely come up with a Synthetic Tornado design which is practical and easily expandable to supply all the free energy one will ever need and then some. Its main component can be manufactured inexpensively with an extrusion process.

The demonstration prototype which I have built and am upgrading is fabricated using layers of .06 in. thick pieces of vinyl plastic. Each layer is cut then stacked to produce the desired structure. The version I have built as of this writing has about 60 layers of this plastic. The upgrade I am working on will add another 40 layers.

I need an air flow rate of 10 in./sec. out of the 3/8 in. dia. out put hole in order to turn a simple paper paddle wheel enough to make a video. As of this writing I have enough air flow to easily feel on my hand but not the required 10in./sec.

When I have an upgraded version built with this required flow, I will post details of this design.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I would like to see free energy eliminate tornadoes.

The technology is tied to the Tesla saucers and his wireless
electrical transmission and his high current projection tube.

Releasing this technology will put an end to the Illuminati
and our ET rulers.

The ETs and Illuminati rulers won't do this cause they are all sick.

Being there are no ETs it will be the end of the Illuminati.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by graysquirrel
 


I've actually done a bit of actual experiments regarding Kinetic Molecular theory of Gases.

It's very similar to your ideas as I also used a vortex and attempted to influence or induce order to the random bouncing of the air molecules.

It resulted in failure!!! But let's not cry yet. I think the failure has to do with 'Boundary Layer Behavior' and 'Reynolds Number'. If you're familiar with aerodynamics or fluid dynamics, you'll understand those terms and what they do.

To clear myself, air molecules doesn't actually bounce the way you predicted it, it's much more complicated than that and may perhaps be better explained using Quantum Mechanics!


Although, you did a great job at arriving at the concept, I sure do think it will work if you figure it out correctly! Good Luck!


And to clear and if I'm right this engine doesn't violate the 1st Law - Law of Conservation of Energy. But it does violate 2nd law by decreasing the Entropy in a system.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Thanks for your post. I gave you a star. It is nice to here from a fellow free thinker.

I actually did take an upper division class in fluid dynamics. I do vaguely remember Reynolds Number and what it was used for. But, I have completely forgotten the equation for it.

I never even considered the violation of the 1st Law. Which is why I don’t think I even have any reference to it here.

I have a feeling that the experiment you did trying to organize air molecules that you thought failed was actually a success. If the outcome of your experiment was supposed to be an air flow, such as mine, and the air flow was much smaller than you were expecting, you could have falsely concluded that there was no air flow, hence, failure.

Now that I have said that, I am curious. could you please post details of this experiment. I will take an educated guess in saying that I will probably be able to verify that you were a success and why the performance was so limited.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I wonder if there is an electrical affect causing the wind.

AD Moore made many static machines by unbalancing the
100 ions per cu cm in the air around us.

As long as there is an air flow, a way to amplify it might
be static or electric.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by graysquirrel
I never even considered the violation of the 1st Law. Which is why I don’t think I even have any reference to it here.....

......Now that I have said that, I am curious. could you please post details of this experiment. I will take an educated guess in saying that I will probably be able to verify that you were a success and why the performance was so limited.


I'm sorry that I can't provide the details yet but glad we are on the same page! I've already solved my earlier failures on paper, just waiting for the opportunity to conduct the 2nd attempt at a different device that should test the theory - not the engine yet.

But not before I relocate and find a new job first! As the new design is more complex, more expensive, and more dangerous than before!

I still strongly suggest you go ahead and test your design though and disregard my failures!! I haven't got time to study your design in depth yet, so I could say anything is possible at this moment! I think it can be done cheap, I hope


[edit on 18-6-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MBF
I read a little about ST's in a Popular Science article. They proposed using hot water from a nuclear power plant to sustain the tornado. Instead of going to cooling towers for cooling, the vortex would "suck" the heat from the water cooling the water and extracting the heat to sustain itself and drive turbines.


Using the hot water for more power than cooling in the towers
almost seems counter how scientists are told to build things.
People with money tell the builders what to build.
A stupid way to make things.
Only a man like Tesla built what he wanted.
And now many people have what they didn't want built.


MBF

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by MBF
I read a little about ST's in a Popular Science article. They proposed using hot water from a nuclear power plant to sustain the tornado. Instead of going to cooling towers for cooling, the vortex would "suck" the heat from the water cooling the water and extracting the heat to sustain itself and drive turbines.


Using the hot water for more power than cooling in the towers
almost seems counter how scientists are told to build things.


Not really, if you just run the hot water through the cooling towers, all you do is remove the heat from the water and the energy is wasted. If you can use the wasted heat for anything, it is a plus. Just think, hurricanes are fed from the warm waters they are over, they die out fairly quickly as soon as they get over land where they don't have access to a heat source.



People with money tell the builders what to build.
A stupid way to make things.


Exactly, I think that the people that come up with the ideas are the ones that should profit from them, not the pencil pushers. Having money doesn't necessarily you smart.



Only a man like Tesla built what he wanted.
And now many people have what they didn't want built.


A man ahead of his time. If he had all the money he needed, there is no telling where we would be today.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MBF

A man ahead of his time. If he had all the money he needed, there is no telling where we would be today.


It's actually his fault for not being clever and smart enough to make enough money to fund his projects!!

You know we live in a very cruel and very selfish world. I would suggest to all you modern-day Tesla's in the making, learn how to get rich!!


[edit on 22-6-2009 by ahnggk]


MBF

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by MBF

A man ahead of his time. If he had all the money he needed, there is no telling where we would be today.


It's actually his fault for not being clever and smart enough to make enough money to fund his projects!!

You know we live in a very cruel and very selfish world. I would suggest to all you modern-day Tesla's in the making, learn how to get rich!!


[edit on 22-6-2009 by ahnggk]


You have a point. I have the same problem. Got any suggestions?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MBF
 


I have no useful suggestions at the moment, sadly. But in my experience, you can save a lot of money by using recycled or surplus goods or stuff you can get from the junkyard.

Forget about B-new components and equipment. Also, learn to improvise McGyver-style.

Use precision only when needed or relevant to the experiment, not to make it look good... - this saves you time.

Use reliable (usually expensive) parts only when VERY needed or that safety will be compromised - this saves you money.

Build a bunker - expect more failures from less sophisticated experiments. Also learn how to repair damaged goods. But don't worry, despite all the hassles aside getting yourself seriously injured, all this should only cost you an exceedingly tiny fraction of many orders of magnitude, white coats do it in dust-free, bacteria-free labs!

[edit on 25-6-2009 by ahnggk]


MBF

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


I've done that. My problem is the selling of my ideas. Last year, I made a device that cut our air conditioning cost. The cost of building the device was less than $200, but being mass produced, I think it could be done for $100. Our power bill for July was $399 before I installed the device. August is normally the hottest month, but the power bill was $148. More than enough to pay for the cost of the device. I have written a couple of letters and always send them certified mail, but I have gotten no response. It looks like somebody would be interested in getting this device into production. I know that there is a lot of crack pots out there with huge claims
that never work, but I sent copies of our power bills with all the information so they could check to see if they were valid.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MBF
 


Wow, that sounds amazing!

Yea, that's the problem with many inventors. You know, inventors and businessmen, don't think alike. Inventors are risk-takers, businessmen aren't, especially if it's someone else's idea.

I assume you know a thing or two about manufacturing. To manufacture an entirely new product, engineers have to think of a way to fabricate it in the most cost-effective manner, there's an initial cost involved in that, it can be huge depending on the sophistication of the product. Then once production starts, you need to meet a minimum quota to be profitable or cover the initial costs. If your product, didn't sell as expected, it could mean a loss to the manufacturer - thus, they don't bite into ideas easily, even if it's working. Unless it's a kind of a pivotal invention, then these greedy businessmen's way of dealing with such is buying it from you at a 'large sum' . They really don't want partnerships, they want the whole thing!!

That's why we go back again to my earlier post - why don't you mass produce, market, and sell your own product yourself?


Great ideas should sell itself! You've done it, now, figure out how to mass produce it. Since, it cost you that little, I would assume manufacturing with be easy as well.

P.S. make sure you patent it first!


MBF

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


I worked in the automotive manufacturing industry for over 4 years and I majored in mechanical engineering in college, so I know how the system works. I would only want to be paid on the number of units sold, so they would not be out of anything to me unless it was successful.

The reason that I don't mass produce it myself is $$$$$ to get started. The biggest hurdle would be the marketing. What I would like to see is power companies push these and have a program to help pay for them by spreading the cost out over a few months. Most people would not pay a few hundred dollars for something, but if they just had to pay the same amount as their power bill is per month normally for 2-3 months at the most, then it would be paid for and they would have the savings from then on.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
After some though, I have decided to go ahead and post details before I have built an upgraded version with the 10in. per sec. required air flow. It really doesn’t matter how many layers or how long it takes me to achieve this required flow. This is still a practical free energy design and should not be withheld from the public.



Above is a drawing of a Pneumatic Transfer Pulley (PTP). If one stacks a number of these PTP’s on top of one another, the aligned through holes form two cylinders. A helical flow tornado is automatically created in each cylinder. The direction of the rotational component of the flow is the same for each cylinder. The direction of the flow component parallel to the axis of the cylinders for one cylinder is the opposite that of the other. The net result is that the PTP stack which has four holes in it (two on each end) has air being sucked into two of the holes and blown out the other two. Each end has an air in and air out pair. If one plugs both ends of one of the cylinders then air will be sucked in from one end of the stack and blown out the other.

The tornadoes are strongest at the center of the stack and weaken towards the ends. The strength of the tornadoes and hence power output is an exponential function of the size of the stack. Thus, one can get all the power one wants by increasing the size of the PTP stack. The only limitation being that at some point the internal tornadoes will be powerful enough to blow the PTP’s apart.






top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join