It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Self Running 900 Watt Fuelless Electrical Generator! The Real Deal???

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by eRauzed
I am friends with John Searl, the inventor of the Searl Effect Generator and he states that his devices doesn't even break the rules. They just need a bit of a change to state that a device obtain energy from the space fabric.


Hey, what can you tell us about this? Have you seen this device working yourself? Has he had it peer-reviewed etc?




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by MrdDstrbr
Hydro and wind can be seen as a form of solar energy as the sun actually moves and delivers the 'fuel'.

Neither are 'overunity' and are, in fact, inefficient. Overunity implies the efficiency is greater than 100%.

The theoretical power obtainable from a water turbine is q.g.h
where q=volume of flowing water in m^3/sec, g=gravity @ 9.8m/sec & h is the head (height) of the water column in m.
This gives an answer in kW.

There are many losses involved like heat in the turbine bearings, heat in the alternator laminations and windings, power required to drive the excitation for the rotor, head loss due to friction in the water conduit, turbulence and cavitation on the turbine runner etc etc. In practise an efficiency of around 85%-90% is the best achievable.

Financial efficiency is the bottom line and after you construct the dam, controls, conduits and power station you'll find it takes about 50 years to get back the construction costs and actually start to reap profits but by then the scheme is basically worn out and needs major refurbishment or even replacement. Coal and gas power schemes get to break even much sooner than that so guess what the investors prefer.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I don't doubt that there are technologies like this we still don't understand. Even if these inventions did work, our governments would keep them under wraps and limit their use for their elite.

If these systems were widely known, than the current war in the middle east wouldn't be happening right now. We are fighting a war to keep us from evolving technologically, economically, culturally etc. It would seem that the governments are just providing us with the excuse to revolt and bring martial law and the NWO in. I think I'll just watch it unfold on CNN.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Hydro and wind can be seen as a form of solar energy as the sun actually moves and delivers the 'fuel'.

Neither are 'overunity' and are, in fact, inefficient. Overunity implies the efficiency is greater than 100%.


No, you can never have greater than 100% efficiency.

But a device does not have to have greater than 100% efficiency to be "overunity"!

It ONLY needs to produce more usable power than it took to get the device going in the first place.

So, exactly like you said, build the dam, conduits, power station etc, start generating power - and eventually you get a net gain in power!

Why? Because of all the energy of the RIVER that's pouring INTO the system, continuously!

So, yes hydro is inefficient, but a generator at a waterfall is still overunity



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrdDstrbr

By that definition of overunity then it would apply to wood, coal & gas fired boilers because we don't have to put the chemical energy into the fuel, we just dig it out of the ground and burn it


Overunity in itself is only a fleeting illusion because once we determine where the energy is coming from it will no longer appear to be overunity.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Your not taking into acount the massive loss in kinetic energy from the water. Electricity is just one kind of energy. Overunity would imply you harnessed more then enough energy to pump all that water back to the top of the dam. So keep in mind the massive loss of kinetic energy when talking about over unity.

Same applies to solar and wind... keep in mind how much energy it took to create those photons compared to how much you got back, and how much energy it takes to create that much wind compared to how much you get back.



[edit on 21-1-2008 by b309302]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Look guys, we're getting all caught up in arguing the semantics of the word "overunity", and that's not really the point of this thread.

What I found interesting is their claim:

"This is a result of studying the pioneers such as Tesla, Moray, Hendershot and 20 years work by a team of top scientists along with several million in R & D"

WHAT IF THAT'S TRUE?




Originally posted by b309302
Your not taking into acount the massive loss in kinetic energy from the water.


Yes yes, there are massive losses and inefficiencies all throughout the system - and yet the water just keeps coming and coming!! It never seems to run out!


It's the WATER that's important - not the device that merely changes the kinetic energy of the water into electric power.....

Exact same principle with ZPE, or "vacuum energy" or "quantum flux energy" or whatever you want to call it. It's an inexhaustible energy source. We can argue as to whether the devices that tap that energy are "overunity" or not till we're blue in the face, but it's really irrelevant....



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Yes yes, there are massive losses and inefficiencies all throughout the system - and yet the water just keeps coming and coming!! It never seems to run out!


It's the WATER that's important - not the device that merely changes the kinetic energy of the water into electric power.....

Exact same principle with ZPE, or "vacuum energy" or "quantum flux energy" or whatever you want to call it. It's an inexhaustible energy source. We can argue as to whether the devices that tap that energy are "overunity" or not till we're blue in the face, but it's really irrelevant....

As soon as the words 'overunity' or 'perpetual motion machine' come up you'll find a wall of perfectly valid physics theory being thrown at you and rightly so.

The water analogy is a good one because it demonstrates the fact that whatever source of energy we choose to convert to other forms, the sources are definitely finite IE it has to rain or you end up with a non-productive technology museum eventually.

If the energy of the 'aether' can be tapped as Tesla claimed (and I have a lot of faith in Tesla's work) it implies there's an existing unknown system in perfect balance. We'll have to deal with the affect of unbalancing that system if we find a way to extract the energy from it and there could be some nasty surprises in store there knowing the tendency of humans to over-exploit resources.

But all environmental worries aside, the ultimate proof of the concept will be a machine that, once started, supplies more energy back into the grid than it takes to turn it at rated speed. Just a few percent extra output would prove it and no-one has achieved that proof yet. If someone actually does achieve it we'll then have to work out the economic feasibility of building 1 megawatt motor-generators to get a net gain of, say, a few kW of energy back into the grid.

It may be 'free' energy but you won't be able to afford the cost of collecting it.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MrdDstrbr
 


Yes I have seen it in action, Youtube 'SEG' and you'll find some interesting links. Or even better watch 'Searl and Newton'



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I look at free energy as the unlocking of nature. Pretty much all energy we get, that is not provided by labor, fits the bill of "free energy". It may not be free in monetary terms but it is free in the sense that it provides more energy than we have to use to extract it. If it wasn't the case, we would actually never have any net energy.

If you walk up to a man and give him an orange and in return he gives you two back, did you get a free orange? I think so. Works the same way with energy. You put a bit of energy in and nature gives you much more enrgy back. Thats free energy folks.

Is energy ultimately unlimited? I would think that earth alone is not capable of ever draing the universe of our solar system of energy. Could the sun burn out? Of course it could. But i don't see that as a good reason not to try to take advantage of the energy it emits.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Yes this guy knows his stuff, and has several methods of tapping into the source. He's done some interviews over the radio, and if you listen to what he says, you can see that he has a deep understanding of this field, following Tesla, Morays, and even Stubblefields work.

Their people want money so that is why they will run the circle and never get anywhere near production.

My favorite is their unique heater design. This in itself is a great device and works on the same principles of tuning.



Here the other one.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
''Self Running 900 Watt Fuelless Electrical Generator'' sounds unbeleivable and very enticing for a power(electrical) hungry people.While many may not beleive this,its true that you can actually have a Fueless electricl generator that runs alone.Its also easier for an Engineer to beleive than for a non scientist.I am a tudent of Communications Engineering and my first encounter with an electrical motor raied alot of questions in my mind.Since then i have done research on how to make a fueless generator in which i suceeded.While you may still be thinking hard how posible this is,i am now working on a fueless generator inbuilt with an inverter so that the generator does not run indefinately.The power from the generator is used to charge the inverter battery to full capacity after which it automatically witches off.When battery falls below required reqired leve,the generator automatically switches on to provide power and also charge the inverter.The over all arrangement is honestly a complex one.

Omona Tonny.
INSTITTE OF TECHNOLOGY
P.O.BOX 7187
omonat@gmail.com



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 


Please please show me JUST ONE working circuit from an mechanical system that includes an electrical source or output generator of any type that results in a Clean equation using your sources.

Its a very big myth my friend, you will find even non unity, and perpetual motion machines (with electrical generation in or out) are not drawing energy from the vacuum.

It can be observed in nearly every device you see working around you today, even though on a microscopic scale, but the systems you observe around you ARE drawing energy from somewhere even as said if microscopic in comparison to the overall system.

Its very much like our laws of gravity, though then we have the "Anomoly" being shown in every orbit of a satellite ever observed.

Both exist but are never talked about in text books, or universities and are ignored for practical purposes as the effects are soo small.

However as this is happening as it is, why shouldn't a machine / circuit / appuratus not become more efficient on drawing from this source?

Explain to me as well where the electrons come from in a vacuum?

Show me the equations using the second law of thermodynamics to explain this as observed in every vacuum in the world?

Read and wake up.

Elf.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 

I'm sick and tired of hearing about Newton's Law's. They're not Laws. They're theories which he suggested be called laws which just goes to show you the arrogance of the man. Gravity is a LAW. Thermodynamics is a theory that has NEVER been proven to apply all the time, without exception either mathematically or experimentally. A magnet is the obvious example of energy coming out but no energy going in. If a system appears to be generating more energy than it takes in, that's because the excess energy is coming from an unseen source. Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it's not real.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

Overunity does NOT imply that efficiency is greater than 100% Efficiency is a ratio of actual output versus the theoretical maximum output. Naturally there will be losses to friction, etc. but as long as the actual output is greater than the actual input of energy, you get a COP(coefficient of performance )of greater than 1.0

THAT'S what's important.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Anyone who claims that there is no such thing as overunity is ignorant of existing papers in physics. They are also ignorant of experiments that have been duplicated in many universities and can be duplicated at will.

I will give you one example, and you can do your own homework.

The Bohren effect.

Five or almost six years ago, we ourselves were playing around with hydrogen plasma. We were getting some unanticipated results, and took the tube to a well respected forensic engineering testing facility, and they verified AND CERTIFIED that we were producing 2.1 times output over input.

It wasn't practical at that time, and we moved on. Needless to say, since that day I've held in my hand two other overunity technologies (once you enter that underground group, you get to see all sorts of interesting things).

Of the other two overunity technologies, one inventor is now dead, and the other, is justifiably, very cautious.

If a law is a law, then there can be no exceptions. If there is one exception, then this is not a law of physics.

The Bohren effect alone proves that the laws of thermodynamics, AS WRITTEN AND TAUGHT are in error, and thus, no longer laws.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Mathmatical equations can be "formulated" to support a "theory", and thus does NOT make the sum a "law", it still is only a "theory".

And theory and reality dont always fit, tho "bending" the equation can force fit the two and be given the title of a "law".

There are other physics that do exsist but only to those who have gone byond the "law" theory and found that there is no "law" to expanding physics.

There is just one "law of physics" however. Physics can advance too.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by gotrox
 


You are exactly right, and a way has been found to tap the energy that surrounds us. It's really quite simple in a way, once it has been explained.
I am currently working on a project myself, something I would have never considered before. The info is out there, might take a little digging. Hint, look for the Bieford-Brown effect (spelli9ng may not be right.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper

The Bohren effect.



I cannot find anything in physics called "the Bohren effect". I have only found the Bohr effect, which is related to physiology.

Naturally, I am skeptical of free energy claims (as every person should be). But I am willing to look at any evidence suggesting such things exist. I would be interested if you could show me where to find information on this 'Bohren effect'.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join