It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


For those interested in Free Energy, does Otis T. Carr's Free Energy Principle comply with Physics?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

Then you should build one, you might learn something. I have, a little different though, and it will develop inertial force in a relatively straight line.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by Johnmike

Then you should build one, you might learn something. I have, a little different though, and it will develop inertial force in a relatively straight line.

But inertial force is by definition fictitious force, meaning it doesn't really exist and only appears to due to a rotating frame of reference. Unless you used the phrase incorrectly.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by Johnmike

Then you should build one, you might learn something. I have, a little different though, and it will develop inertial force in a relatively straight line.

But inertial force is by definition fictitious force, meaning it doesn't really exist and only appears to due to a rotating frame of reference. Unless you used the phrase incorrectly.

You can call it what you want, but lay it on its side, so the ball spins horizontally, mount the frame to a peice of plywood with 4 caster wheels and you will be going after it trying to cacth before it goes into the street

[edit on 5-6-2009 by mhc_70]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by adrenochrome

I can't deal with this anymore, Jesus. It's all jibberish. It's meaningless. His math is hilariously wrong and makes no sense if you have any background whatsoever. He just threw words together and went with it, even though they're completely meaningless.

And give me a break. Did you read that link?

"The Utron was the key to it all. Carr said it accumulated energy because of its shape, and focused it, and also responded to our conscious intentions. When we operated the machine, we didn't work any controls. We went into a kind of meditative state and all three of us focused our intentions on the effect we wanted to achieve."

Yeah, okay.

I'm done thinking about this fraud. And that's what he is, not because of my hunch, but because of what all attempts to support him have proven. He is a pseudoscientist and a liar, who threw words together in an attempt to confuse people into giving him their trust and their money.

P.S. The smallest subdivision of matter is not square or cubic.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Johnmike]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:59 PM
He lost me at the point they were all three communicating with the machine using their thoughts.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:25 AM
reply to post by Johnmike

just because something hasn't been discovered yet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...

i thought that's what science was - trying to figure out nature...

if all we do is base ideas off of existing discoveries, then how will we ever discover anything outside of the box??

science is always discovering something new, and it's always gotten to me that "scientists" only wanna go with what has already been practiced - only a small handful of revolutionary scientists have existed.

would you think that the world is flat like all of society thought back then? ...or, would you be a rebel and hypothesize that it could be round, test it, and actually verify your claim, even though everyone was telling you that you were wrong?

remember, calling the earth round back then was pseudoscience - now calling it flat is...

sometimes you have to step outside the bounds of science to discover all that is on the other side... why look through the window of existing knowledge, when you can step out to the other side of novel discovery?

...500 years ago, science thought it was right about everything, and why wouldn't they be? they did all they could do to do their best with their "modern" science. they laughed at the "modern" science from 500 years before them. how is now any different?? we know so much more than we did 500 years ago, let alone 1,000 years ago, yet we don't seem to realize that we still don't know everything about our universe - there is so much still to be discovered... all we have now is the best explanations that we can come up with for everything for the time being. we're forever going to learn something new...

500 years from now in the future, won't they laugh at our "modern" science of today, and mock us, for our stubbornness and conceitedness; they're gonna think we were know-it-all's who let our egos get in the way of breaking new ground. ...and here we are, no different than any other time in history, thinking that all of our answers are final, and that there's nothing left to be discovered. but, there's so much more to be discovered, and the journey will never end, for science is a constant discovery, and all we can do is make the best of it for what we discover along the way.

this is why theoretical physics exists, because applied physics isn't all there is...

i hope i'm making sense - basically what i'm trying to say is that we're coming to a point in time where science is discovering new foundations at an alarming rate (quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.), and we can't exercise the same routines and methods that held us back in the past - keeping an extraordinarily opened mind is not only necessary in today's world and for our future, but it's getting to the point to where it is vital for mankind to properly progress and succeed, to evolve!

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by adrenochrome
would you think that the world is flat like all of society thought back then?

Actually, it was theorized that it was round since B.C. times. At least since the 5th century B.C. when Pythagoras lived. There are a few reasons they believed that, ranging from the vague (that a sphere is more harmonious than any other shape) to the observational (a ship's mast falling as it sails toward the horizon, the fact that some stars are not visible from different points on the Earth...).

I don't need a lecture on open minds and theoretical physics, I'm well aware of both. There's just an enormous amount of fake, yes, fake science that people concoct to make money and gain fame. It's really easy, and that's why it's so hard to get published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

But really, just because a guy uses strange phrases and confuses you into believing what he says doesn't mean that it's true. It's obvious from his writing that he had no idea about what he himself was saying, that he just threw words together to sound like he did.

And if you want to get dogmatic, mechanics is very well established, and an anomaly such as this one would be readily apparent. It just doesn't work.

I suggest that you quit believing in the pseudoscientific religion you've taken up and start critically analyzing things for yourself.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

i think the only way for sure to determine if Otis T. Carr was right, is to make a model and test this thing myself...

too bad i don't have the money for it, or else i'd LOVE to try it!

heck, he's even got the blueprints and photos to assist in building it!

[edit on 6-6-2009 by adrenochrome]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by Johnmike

i'm curious to hear what you think about Synergy...

you've heard the whole "1+1=3" thing right?

what are your thoughts on that? O.T.C. mentions that in his interview...

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by adrenochrome

Adrenochrome, I found another scientist besides myself that can help you in your endevour. Maybe you should contact him, because he is working on the same thing as you are and he seems to be very smart, in fact he shows how to work his equations and come up with the answers just like I did. Forget Johnmike, he's just a kid that has read stuff and likes to blab like he knows stuff, but when it comes down to calculating stuff out, Johnmike shows he is no scientist and really knows nothing that can help you. Use real scientists that can calculate the figures and you will make your dreams come true.

This man is a scientist and calculates just like I do and he can help you; not hinder you with BS like Johnmike.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:52 PM
Ok. I am now familiar to a small degree with Mr. Carrs' work..

At this point I would like to point out in the interview, for example, the claim that the pressurized, "cockpit" supplied, "gravity?".

We know today that though the shuttle is pressurized, this in itself simply does not provide gravity.. The man is obviously speaking in theory, concerning, "this" point..

Invertly; he said something about the time within the craft being different from the time outside of the craft, and another thing or two that made me feel that there is some reasonably legitimate insight.

Time and gravity are one in the same. So by encasing the craft with an arc of electricity, you would cause a, "unique" difference between the time occurring within the craft opposed to the time outside of the craft.

Blatently; according to known, "physics" the math for all the devices, "shown" is in no way sufficient to provide enough force to produce lift. The vectors of force are also completely backwords on the devices shown from what I could tell.

Invertly; The description of the effects within the craft suggest that the craft was encased within an arc of what I would call a, "true" plasma field which would be generated by the cohesive field of the spinning objects arcing together.

When a magnet is quickly passed through the metal prongs of a generator, some of the field not having time to circulate back into the magnet is trapped within the iron core of the generator.

It then finds its' way back into its' opposite through the malleable field of the copper wire. So its' speed of flow basically stops when it is taken out of the magnet and instantaneously restarted back through another means of travel. ie the copper wire.

This is a slow/course type of electricity. What I consider a true plasma arc is generated when 2 discs are spinning on an equal plane generating opposite fields that arc into one another around the exterior of the craft.

What I mean by true plasma field is simply this:
The cohesive fields are still flowing. Not stopped and restarted; and at a higher rate of speed than you may think, so this is a much, "finer" electricity. According to the physics of everything I was looking at, no conditions would be met in order to produce flight/lift. No, "arc producing", cohesive field throw, and no gyroscopic thrust.

So do I believe it was a fake? I believe the information allowed to make it to the public was grosely distorted. Some of his descriptions lead me to believe that he may have done it; however the technique achieving it was not released.

Math doesn't lie. It is a simple equasion to work to discover the forces generated. and thank you russian scientist who recommended my work.

Continue seeking along these lines Adrenochrome. You picked a good place to start.

I would encourage you to look up my page for gyroscopic propulsion, and check out David Hamels' work for the generation of an electro-magnetic arc designed to block out gravity.

Thank you.


posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:18 PM
This might not pertain exactly to what everyone here is talking about but here it is.

this wheel is powered by magnetism. Although it not full powered by it, it however uses the principles of magnetism to increase in speed.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by noconsequence

thanks for the elaborate post!

you seem to have a partial understanding of this, which is more than i can say for most!

maybe this will help somewhat? ...and i probably should have posted this earlier, as i've known about this page for a while now...

what do you think??

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by RussianScientists

reply to post by adrenochrome

What about synergy?

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

how do you feel about the whole "1+1=3" scenario, and how that might apply to the natural mechanics of the universe?

also, have you seen this before??

Google Video Link

if not, please let me know what you think about his explanation of gravity and how it works!

oh, and i'd like you to check out this page, too, Johnmike!

[edit on 9-6-2009 by adrenochrome]

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by adrenochrome

Yes sir. I studied all of the info you just provided here yesterday before I answered you. Please note the third picture down on this page:

In this picture you will note that the top equator of the gyros is farther away from the spinning center of craft. Any physicist would tell you that there is more, "lift" side of the gyroscopic forces thrown away by the spin of the entire mechanism than there is downward force thrown away.

In other words; this is producing more downward force than upward force according to the proper formula to find the forces generated. This will not be clearly demonstrated because the gyros are too far apart..

However in the 5th picture down on this page it shows that the mechanism is in fact at least spinning in the proper direction. Never the less there are not sufficient gyroscopic forces generated unless this, "matching the velocity of the Earth?" thing carries any water.

I choose to believe the math, and the fact that the fields thrown do not, "line up" in such a way that they would produce an arc encasing the craft.

At this time I would like to say that I believe they did achieve flight, as a result of Tesla talking to someone around Mars with primitive radio equipment, and a few other insights. However I do not believe the public was, "allowed" any access to the real technologies achieving this.

It's as simple as this; the equator of the gyro that is closest to the center of the spinning mechanism will retain the highest amount of pull. Thus in the picture, "shown" the greater force is not lift but is in fact downward.

I would simply call it a disinformation ploy. In other words the people knew he did it; but when they build their own according to his, "released" work it fails.

That makes him look like a fake when what simply happened then is the same thing that happens today. The information was successfully supressed.

I believe he did it but not with any design sheeple will find; because the mechanical information is obviously purposefully misleading. I am able to show you the proper way to do the math if you would like.

Thank you.


posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:18 AM
reply to post by noconsequence

Hi Noconsequence,

Your thoughts are very insightful, but.. there are some places in your thinking where I'm sure you are not correct in your assumptions and I will point those out in order to see what you think.

In the Eric Laithwaite videos Eric proves that there is more lift than downward force with the 25 kilo gyroscope he has spinning. He fully states that it is pulling upward, and there is no way on Earth he could do what he does with that heavy gyroscope unless it was creating upward lift of a great magnitude. He later produces the scientific math to prove why it works contrary to what most scientists think it should in another video.

You also state that the fields thrown up would not produce an arc encompassing the vehicle. I don't believe that is true. If we look at the videos of the Second Berlin fleet of Nazi flying discs in the videos on them and we listen to what they stated, they stated that their fleet was flown off and onto tables that was erected several feet above the ground so that the vehicles could charge at a much faster pace than loosing energy to the ground. In fact there are several photos of their flying discs charging while sitting on top of tables that are several feet off the ground. If my memory is correct, they stated it either took 10 seconds to charge the flying discs on top of the platforms, or 10 minutes.

They stated if the flying disc vehicles landed on the ground it took much longer to charge them and when they departed they took part of the ground underneath of them (clinging to the underside of their crafts) if they landed on the ground instead of up on top of a wooden platform because of the static charge. As you well know electrons flow on the outside of a wire not down inside of it, similar to what the craft should be producing. A static charge also encompasses such vehicles.

The trick that I think Carr used was a very simple trick to get it all working. The flattened disc inside of Carr's disc is not only alternately fielded by magnets that pass through other magnets close to the outer edge of the craft to keep up the speed, but there could be a static material also, just like what is used in a Van De Graff generator which in fact would produce an immense force field on the outside of the craft.

Tesla's Waldencliff tower which was donut shaped at the top looked very much like a flying saucer sitting on top of a tower, very similar to the Nazi flying discs sitting on top of their towers. I'm sure Carr's flying disc used this same simple technology to create immense forces in order to fly. Tesla stated that his towers were going to propel flying vehicles with free energy that could transport goods on immense ships at his estimated speed of 300 to 500 miles per hour. Tesla had a lot of stuff in those 27 chests that he had in storage that his family came over and retrieved after his death.

I'm sure Carr achieved flight also, just like you state.

Tesla made a mistake when he stated he thought he had detected signals from Mars. He later discovered this mistake and didn't enlighten others about the mistake and he never talked about making contact with Mars after that. He detected Earth signals, signals coming from within the Earth, I have equipment that detects those particular signals also. So... he did not make contact with Mars, I will prove that later on in videos. Tesla gained most of his insights from ancient technology that his father had taken from the Vatican when his father worked in the Vatican.

I don't believe Carr really produced disinformation, I believe he just didn't tell all that he knew. He didn't get the patent for it being worthless. The top of the craft is producing one type of energy, while the bottom is producing another type of energy; one is positive and the other is negative just like the Waldencliff Tower.

The innards of his craft is simple, yet I see nobody building such a craft or for that matter anything that looks like his patent.

Hey Noconsequence, thanks for all of your imput. I know I appreciate it and I'm sure the others do also. Now its time for you to tell me what you think of my thoughts about some of your thoughts. I think I'm a lot older than you my friend, but you have a sharp scientific mind also. I'm sure we can figure out all of this stuff in no time at all because it is not that complicated. Not only that, but you are sure that Carr's flying disc flew and I believe his flying disc flew also. The patents show lots of things but they tell very little about everything; almost all patents are like that when it comes to somewhat complex stuff.

Besides being older, I've seen a lot of things that others haven't seen. I can see that we are making headway here in giant leaps and bounds. The only problem is... is that we will have to make a prototype in order to prove all of it. I'm not worried about the prototype being built, because I'm sure there are some people out there watching this tread that are going to build the prototype. They are observers, not participants that are interested also in this endevour.

George Adamski's drawings of the UFO's were very similar to Carr's patent, I found that rather interesting many years ago. My library is filled with first editions signed by such authors.

Thanks for helping Noconsequence and keep up your train of thoughts.

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by RussianScientists

There's something I would like for you to think about. When Mr Laithwaite demonstrated the heavy gyro he developed a polarity; meaning that the mass field of the spinning gyro takes in and releases cohesive field differently than a non spinning weight. Thus the fact that their, "matching the velocity of the Earth" probably holds, "some" water.

Though it changes the way gravity flows through the matter, this alone however does not shield the machine from gravity. Though I believe his math demonstrated the purpose of the gyro being less effected by gravity due to this, "generated polarity".

Its' too much detail to explain what I mean here. I do not in any way believe that it was generating lift/antigravity; only that it changed the way in which the gyro inter-reacted with the gravitational field of the Earth.

Where might I find the schematics for these Nazi discs? Like I said, I believe that Mr Carr, achieved flight; however I do not believe the way that this was accomplished has ever been released to the public.

I too do not believe Mr Carr partook in disinformation though I believe he was not allowed to disclose the truth of how it was accomplished under heavy pressure of illuminati..

I am not sure I agree with what you said about Tesla not talking to someone around Mars because I have read the detailed conversation that supposedly transpired where they also mentioned the gyroscopic effects of the crafts drive over the radio conversation.

Some things might receive a patent, however they have a secret database of many that are considered security secrets. People knew he did it so the illuminati had to show some kind of patent.

Though I have no doubt that you have in fact discovered these radio signals produced within the Earth; as you are obviously a sincere individual, I do not believe this was the case with Tesla.

I too have not seen an accurate replication of this patent. However like I said, I believe that they designed this patent so that people moving on the right track would be desuaded in their efforts.

I believe that many of these prototypes have been built all-ready; and that the ones matching the design, "shown" did not work.

The key word here is angular momentum isn't it? This does mean there is workable formula for it. I believe the effects of all parts can be calculated. I also believe I have allready done this. This includes the generated plasma arc.

I admit I don't know everything. So I humbly invite anyone with working knowledge saying differently to show me.

Though every one may have seen my post on efficient angular momentum for gyroscopic propulsion, I feel I should give the link again.

I am able to go farther into the math to help clarify than I have if necessary.

I believe you understand that math works; and I believe Mr Laithwaites' math was in fact correct. I do not believe his, "interpretation" that the single gyroscope producing lift was on point. Though it would appear to be obvious that this is the case.

If someone would like, I will be happy to clarify the reason for this in another post.. I would also have to generate graphics which would take some time.._javascript:icon('

Thank you.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by noconsequence

Hi Noconsequence,

Carr was the one that referred to the spin having to somewhat match the Earth's rate of spin in proportion to size, not Laithwaite. Just wanted to clear that up for future readers reference.

I can see where the spinning gyro creates its own polarity and field, and somehow it does shield itself from weaker gravity fields because when the 25 kilo gyro was completely off to one side spinning, it was not touching the ground except for it's extended pole end, even though much of that 25 kilos had no direct support under its weight axis. It over came gravity, and it didn't do it by thrust. Your right when you stated that it interacted differently with the gravitational field; by a process that we have not understood.

Carr's total knowledge wasn't released to the public, no one's total knowledge is ever released to the public, no matter how open some people want to be. Even you my friend, when you show us your video on your other thread, it is very hard to determine what you are tying to say, so why don't you elaborate more, bring it down so that a fifth grader can understand what you are trying to say. In other words, go ahead and say it. Your energy device is a FREER ENERGY DEVICE, or to get others rattled, just tell them its a free energy mechanism. Then you will get all of the crazies after you, but you will get lots of attention, and maybe more help in obtaining whatever knowledge you are still seeking.

As you see from the last video, elemental material of the craft and its parts, and that of a gyroscope can make a big difference in achieving massive antigravitational thrust.

I'll let you slide on the statement that Tesla made contact, that is if you say he spoke to someone and heard that someone, but as to the signals he and his equipment detected, my stuff does the same thing. If he made audible verbal contact with others, then they were probably Germans in New Berlin down in the Antartica or over in Germany depending on the date that he made contact. The Germans were well known for telling everyone that they were from Mars or other planets when they sat down in their flying discs that they called VRIL, I suppose they could have tried to fool Tesla the same way in a conversation about their VRIL that they had.

I went to your other page and what you have is interesting, but I think the video is a little too fast and too many shadows existed where there should be solids, like at the base and at the top. But... you are one intelligent person my friend, and our conversations are making progress I believe.

Keep up the good work.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:13 PM
Hello adrenochrome/everyvody.

I would like to show you a few pictures that I made in order to demonstrate field movement which has everything to do with the physics of the craft in question.

I assume you are aware that what we call the North pole is actually the magnetic south pole. Strange that they would do that; however if you remember who has been running the show you might put what I'm giving you here together..

First the way north field feeds the mass of the planet while south field is pulled up out of it's mass like a waste field.

Secondly, the effect that the spinning of the planet has on its' cohesive field, throwing south field from the planets central mass, drawing north cohesive field from both quarter ends of the planet, much like a dynamo:

Supposedly I gather we do not know what made Mr Laithwaites' heavy gyro loose weight? Ok.

Remember first of all the fact that field is not only passing through matter, North field is feeding into it drawing south out of it as well. This little known fact has caused many scientist to believe that matter, light, time, and space are one in the same. Walter Russel, "The Universal One"

When the gyro was spun it throws the, "loosest part first" of its cohesive field
outside of the mass of the gyro as the second pic shows. What draws the non-spinning gyro to the Earth is this field exchange.

When the gyro is spun, the field exchange begins to occur on the outside of the gyro rather than through it causing gravity to have less of an effect on its' mass; thus Carrs' velocity of the Earth idea.

Just to add insight here we will combine the thrown field with the normal north-south flow of fields: The info here is bigger than it looks at first glance.

Note: There are three magnetic equators here. The central equator of the North-South flows of field, and two equators generated by the spinning of its' mass.

This also clarifies the reason water spins two different directions draining on one side of the equator. The water is, "falling" into the thrown field.

Finally, if you can read rightly between the lines:

You are looking at the guide lines of producing anti-gravity. For posterity sake I will not delve deeper into what I am hoping you will see in the last two pictures.

Theoretically, if you put another sphere on the outside of the disc spinning so that it is throwing north field from the equator drawing south from both pole ends, the fields will form an arc around the craft.

In the design that we have from Carr I am seeing what could be deemed as two different, "implications" of drives that aare not complete/correct, in that according to physics the way I understand them, they are not aligned in such a way that this arc could free its mass from gravity.

The gyros are too far apart and would need to be flipped to produce lift. The physics of the design shown do not appear to be sound, at least to me.

You invited me to try, though I am not sure I believe I have been very helpful. Can anyone chime in that can show one working with open views confirming the design?

Thank you.


<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in